Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I want to point out to the Senator from Nebraska that it is just the opposite. It is the inequitable distribution of wealth that has been occurring the other way year after year for a decade or two. Whenever people get up and talk about trying to distribute more equitably the wealth we have in our society, the other side is saying you are practicing class warfare. It is just the opposite. They are the ones who are doing it with their policies that are more and more concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and when somebody brings it up, they point a finger and say, ``class warfare.'' It just is not fair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I am pleased to be here to say a couple of words about this budget proposal we are voting on today. I am voting against it. Like Senators Cohen and Domenici, I am also the son of immigrant parents and worked most of my life in the private sector. I have been very fortunate. I am among the most wealthy and well off in our society. Mr. President, I would be embarrassed to go back and tell the people I represent in Wisconsin that the balanced budget amendment that I voted for asked nothing from me, zero, and I voted for it. It asks a lot from middle-income people, lower-income people, students, from everybody in our society except the well off. This balanced budget proposal I voted for asks nothing from the well off, and it is not inadvertent and it is not an accident and it is not something that we should hold out to the American people as something of which we are proud and endorse. We should not say now, ``Well, we'll change it later.'' Why do we not have a consideration for what I just suggested in this balanced budget proposal that we are discussing? We have a situation in this country today in a way which is more skewed than any society in the world. The wealthiest 1 percent controls 40 percent of our assets in this country, and the most well off 20 percent control 80 percent of the assets in this country, and it is going in the wrong direction. Here we come up with an economic proposal which does not take that into consideration at all. In fact, for those most well off, they will come out of this with an economic benefit--a tax cut. They will be asked not to do one thing to help to balance our budget. If this represents fairness, then everything that I have been taught about what is fair in the years that I have lived on this Earth does not make any sense at all. There was an opportunity that Senator Cohen and Senator Domenici had to vote for a balanced budget proposal that did contain fewer tax cuts, and those tax cuts were aimed at people in the middle-income brackets that needed them the most; that did contain fewer cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and nutrition programs and student loan programs. Senator Cohen and Senator Domenici did not vote for those proposals. So they are talking now about a balanced budget proposal, in Senator Cohen's words, that is more fair in the ways he just described which are exactly like some of the proposals we made early on in the process: Senator Bradley's proposal, Senator Conrad's proposal. Senator Cohen did not vote for it. So now we have just one proposal to consider, and that is this proposal which is, in my judgment, most unfair and it is not a way in which we should go to the American people and ask them to support our concept of a balanced budget proposal. So I have to vote against this balanced budget proposal. I am very regretful, Mr. President, because I am a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. I recognize having been in business all my life how important it is not to spend money you do not have. I am a supporter of a line-item veto. I am convinced we have to come up with a balanced budget proposal, and I hope before this process is over this year I will be able to vote for a balanced budget proposal. But, Mr. President, it has to be fair. It has to be something that the American people can look at and say, this represents equity in the quest to balance our budget. So I must say I cannot support this proposal. I am looking forward to continuing the dialog. I very much hope before October rolls around that we will come up with something that I can support out of fairness. In my judgment, this proposal is not fair. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KOHL. Yes, that is true, I say to the Senator. As I said in my earlier remarks, I would be flatout embarrassed to go on back to Wisconsin and tell people that I voted for a balanced budget proposal that is going to cost them money out of their pockets, money that they really need, and for myself I voted a tax cut. I mean, this is not fair, and if we do not represent fairness, then what do we represent?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, some today have presented Dr. Foster's credentials and discussed his integrity. Others simply do not support the candidate. We have heard the arguments. We should be ready to vote--to go on record, yes or no, whether we approve of this nominee. Unfortunately, Mr. President, some in this body do not want a vote on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster. The debate we are now engaged in is not about the qualifications of the candidate for the job of Surgeon General. This is about a political game. Machiavelli would enjoy how the Nation's business is handled in Washington, D.C. today. Bipartisanship is a word easily tossed around, but seldom practiced. The bottom line is how to prevail in the next election, not how to solve this Nation's problems. Do we really think the best way to find qualified candidates to serve the United States Government is to pick apart their careers and their characters, groping for something that will justify a political end? Is that what faces all those who wish to serve their country? Ever since the President announced Dr. Foster as the Surgeon General nominee, the Nation has witnessed a non-stop exercise in abusive politics. For months Dr. Foster was attacked by those opposed to his profession and who questioned his integrity. Based on allegations by ideological factions and media scrutiny, some called for the nomination to be pulled before allowing Dr. Foster a chance to respond. That is not how this body should consider Presidential nominations. Nominations should proceed in a fair manner, allowing candidates to fully present their story. We should debate those whose views differ from our own. That is called Democracy. But I do not believe every event in a person's life should be held under a national microscope--especially when the person in question has no chance to respond. That is called persecution. Fortunately, Dr. Foster finally received a fair hearing in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. He responded well to questions raised about his background and proved to be an honest, caring and dedicated individual. After all that Dr. Foster and his family has endured in the past several months, does he not deserve a vote? Dr. Foster has committed his life to helping others and promoting public health. He is well respected by his professional peers and those whose lives he has touched through community service. In short, this candidate is qualified to serve as Surgeon General and deserves a final decision. The Labor Committee approved of Dr. Foster and passed his nomination. It is now time for the full Senate to exercise its responsibility. I urge my colleagues to end this sad political spectacle and vote on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to join my fellow citizens in the State of Wisconsin in celebrating Juneteenth Day, a day which celebrates the abolition of slavery in the United States. As much as any other event in African-American history, the Emancipation Proclamation was one step in the long struggle which has lasted the last two centuries. This document is an affirmation of freedom and dignity, and is also a reaffirmation of the goals, hopes and dreams of all African-Americans. The African-American community has given so much to this country, and Juneteenth is a day to celebrate the many achievements made by African- American men and women. This day is not only a celebration of freedom, but a statement of understanding and pride in the African-American culture. History is rich with the contributions made by African- Americans, and they continue to be a valuable part of this society. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was the beginning of a long road for the African-American community which we still continue to travel today. The fight for equality continues and we must push for the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that all children ``not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' We have come a long way since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation, but we must persist with the idea that each person in this country be offered every opportunity and there is equality in every aspect of society. I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating Juneteenth Day, a day of freedom, pride, and dignity in the African-American community.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a brief explanation of the amendment offered on my behalf by my colleague, Senator Baucus. The amendment that was accepted by the managers of the bill addresses a problem that is critical to north central Wisconsin, but it does so in a way that does not upset the balance and symmetry of this important piece of legislation. Specifically, my amendment relates to a 104-mile portion of U.S. Highway 51--also known as Wisconsin State Highway 78. Highway 51 connects population centers and industries located in north central Wisconsin with markets to the south. Wisconsin has recently completed the improvements necessary to bring Highway 51 up to interstate standards, and interstate shields will soon be erected. However, a Federal exemption to insert weight requirements is required to allow continued operation of overweight commercial vehicles that currently use Highway 51. Overweight vehicles currently operate on this stretch [[Page S 8659]] of highway under State permits, but they would be forced off the road once the highway is designated as an interstate. U.S. 51 is the only four lane north-south road serving this area. All other roads are secondary two lane State highways. Forcing large trucks onto these narrower--and more winding--secondary roads raises greater safety--and durability--concerns. The secondary roads that would be affected are small country roads that have never had large truck traffic. Who knows what sort of damage these huge vehicles could do? Highway 51 has handled large truck traffic safely and efficiently for many years and a weight exemption would allow continued use of this safe and efficient route. The weight exemption is also critical to a number of industries that contribute to the continued economic development of north central Wisconsin, including the manufacturing, pulp and paper, farming, food processing, dairy, livestock, refuse, garbage, recycling, and coal industries. Many Wisconsin communities and businesses, both small and large, will benefit from the adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, before I yield the floor I would like to thank the bill managers--chairman Chafee and Senator Moynihan--for their assistance and consideration. Let me also express my gratitude to Senator Baucus for his advice and assistance in offering the amendment. Finally, I thank my good colleague from New Jersey--Senator Lautenberg--for his guidance in this matter. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce a modified version of legislation I introduced in February, S. 417, which will help Wisconsin and several other States, including Oregon, Texas, Alaska, and California, extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This legislation will amend the eligibility requirements for mortgage revenue bond financing for State veterans housing programs. Wisconsin uses this tax-exempt bond authority to assist veterans in purchasing their first home. Under rules adopted by Congress in 1984, this program excluded from eligibility veterans who served after 1977. This bill would remove that restriction. Wisconsin and the other eligible States simply want to maintain a principle that we in the Senate have also strived to uphold--that veterans of the Persian Gulf war should not be treated less generously than those of past wars. This bill will make that possible.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the success of three students from Mukwonago, WI, who recently won the national stock market game. The success of Nathan Berish, Jeff Kenda, and Mike Huberty, is impressive not only because they did better than almost 700,000 other student contestants, but because they set an all new record for the 19-year-old game. For 10 weeks during the spring semester, teams from across the country participated in a mock stock-exchange project, each given a hypothetical $100,000 to invest as they chose. This winning team managed to turn that $100,000 into $1.5 million. An accomplishment about which most professional stockbrokers only dream. The previous record for the game was $920,000. While we so often focus on the shortcomings of our schools, these students are a reminder of the quality of our Nation's young people and the positive potential of our school system. Anyone who worries that students are not being taught about the real world of work should take heart from the success of these young men who proved their adeptness in one of our most competitive industries. Unfortunately, the Securities Industry Association [SIA] which administers the contest has turned its back on the students who should be its pride and joy. Worried about negative publicity pointing out imperfections in the game it designed, the SIA has tried to minimize the attention that the winners receive. This attitude is insulting. There is no evidence to suggest that these students did not play the game in exactly the same manner as the other contestants--they just made better investments. I am extremely proud of these students. I do not want SIA's inconsiderate treatment to overshadow their accomplishment. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these outstanding students.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds. Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a continue to support it. But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should alter the support this bill had in 1990. The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. That is the only change to the legislative language of the original bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act. The goal of this bill is simple: to heed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Federal power and yet to continue the fight against school violence. The Lopez decision cannot be used as an excuse for complacency. Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30-day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis? My home State, Wisconsin, is not immune to this wave of violence. According to Gerald Mourning, the former director of school safety for Milwaukee, ``[K]ids who did their fighting with their fists, and perhaps knives, are now settling their arguments with guns.'' In the 1993-94 school year half of the students expelled from the Milwaukee Public Schools were thrown out for bringing a gun to school. In Dane County, WI, the number of juvenile weapons offenses tripled--from 75 in 1989 to 220 in 1993. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a simple, straightforward, effective and construction approach to this problem. In the Lopez decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns found in school zones to interstate commerce. Much as I disagree with the 5 to 4 decision and strongly agree with the dissenters--Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg--our new legislation will clearly pass muster under the majority's Lopez test. By requiring that the prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school ``moved in or affected interstate commerce,'' the act is a clear exercise of Congress' unquestioned power to regulate interstate activities. In fact, the Lopez decision itself suggested that requiring an explicit connection between the gun and interstate commerce in each prosecution would assure the constitutionality of the act. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the guns brought to schools are part of a interstate problem. After all, almost every gun is made with raw material from one State, assembled in a second State, and transported to the school yards of yet another State. One 14-year-old in a Madison, WI, gang told the Wisconsin State Journal that the older leaders of his gang brought carloads of guns from Chicago to Madison to pass out to the younger gang members to take to school. In short, this act regulates a national, interstate problem. Numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld similar regulations. When the act was first passed, less than a dozen States had laws dealing with guns on school grounds. Now, more than 40 have such legislation. Our original Federal law served as an example and a spur to these State laws, and all of us in Congress should be proud of that. Their presence, however, does not eradicate the need for a Federal law. In light of these State laws, a few of my colleagues have asked me why we need a Federal statute. The answer is simple. Some States still do not have State Gun-Free School Zones Acts; others simply have laws that supplement the Federal statute; still more have laws that are weaker than the Federal law. Alabama, for example, only prohibits bringing a gun to a public school with the intent to cause bodily harm. That means you can bring a gun to school, frighten and disrupt everyone, but still get off because you did not intend to cause injury. And in Alabama you can bring a gun to private school without any worries. That is unacceptable. With a Federal law, we can fill in these loopholes. And where there are not State laws, we can fill in the even larger gaps. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors the flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or Federal statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher. Mr. President, Congress cannot ignore the epidemic of school violence. The epidemic is undermining our educational system and threatens to cripple our Nation's competitiveness. It is turning our schoolyards into sanctuaries for armed criminals and drug gangs. We have repeatedly recognized that our Nation's classrooms deserve special protection and attention from the Federal Government. Gun-Free school zones are not a panacea, to be sure, but they are an important step toward fighting gun violence and keeping our teachers and children safe. Five years ago we all agreed unanimously on this bill. It was sensible then, and it is sensible now. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Gun-Free School Zones Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds. Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a continue to support it. But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should alter the support this bill had in 1990. The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. That is the only change to the legislative language of the original bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act. The goal of this bill is simple: to heed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Federal power and yet to continue the fight against school violence. The Lopez decision cannot be used as an excuse for complacency. Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30-day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis? My home State, Wisconsin, is not immune to this wave of violence. According to Gerald Mourning, the former director of school safety for Milwaukee, ``[K]ids who did their fighting with their fists, and perhaps knives, are now settling their arguments with guns.'' In the 1993-94 school year half of the students expelled from the Milwaukee Public Schools were thrown out for bringing a gun to school. In Dane County, WI, the number of juvenile weapons offenses tripled--from 75 in 1989 to 220 in 1993. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a simple, straightforward, effective and construction approach to this problem. In the Lopez decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns found in school zones to interstate commerce. Much as I disagree with the 5 to 4 decision and strongly agree with the dissenters--Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg--our new legislation will clearly pass muster under the majority's Lopez test. By requiring that the prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school ``moved in or affected interstate commerce,'' the act is a clear exercise of Congress' unquestioned power to regulate interstate activities. In fact, the Lopez decision itself suggested that requiring an explicit connection between the gun and interstate commerce in each prosecution would assure the constitutionality of the act. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the guns brought to schools are part of a interstate problem. After all, almost every gun is made with raw material from one State, assembled in a second State, and transported to the school yards of yet another State. One 14-year-old in a Madison, WI, gang told the Wisconsin State Journal that the older leaders of his gang brought carloads of guns from Chicago to Madison to pass out to the younger gang members to take to school. In short, this act regulates a national, interstate problem. Numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld similar regulations. When the act was first passed, less than a dozen States had laws dealing with guns on school grounds. Now, more than 40 have such legislation. Our original Federal law served as an example and a spur to these State laws, and all of us in Congress should be proud of that. Their presence, however, does not eradicate the need for a Federal law. In light of these State laws, a few of my colleagues have asked me why we need a Federal statute. The answer is simple. Some States still do not have State Gun-Free School Zones Acts; others simply have laws that supplement the Federal statute; still more have laws that are weaker than the Federal law. Alabama, for example, only prohibits bringing a gun to a public school with the intent to cause bodily harm. That means you can bring a gun to school, frighten and disrupt everyone, but still get off because you did not intend to cause injury. And in Alabama you can bring a gun to private school without any worries. That is unacceptable. With a Federal law, we can fill in these loopholes. And where there are not State laws, we can fill in the even larger gaps. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors the flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or Federal statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher. Mr. President, Congress cannot ignore the epidemic of school violence. The epidemic is undermining our educational system and threatens to cripple our Nation's competitiveness. It is turning our schoolyards into sanctuaries for armed criminals and drug gangs. We have repeatedly recognized that our Nation's classrooms deserve special protection and attention from the Federal Government. Gun-Free school zones are not a panacea, to be sure, but they are an important step toward fighting gun violence and keeping our teachers and children safe. Five years ago we all agreed unanimously on this bill. It was sensible then, and it is sensible now. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Gun-Free School Zones Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of anti-terrorism legislation. After all, one of the principal purposes of any government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. And the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal building and the bombing of the World Trade Center indicate that we need to do a better job in this area. But I continue to have concerns about some provisions of S. 735, just as I did about the President's proposal. In addition, I am concerned that the bill under consideration may divide the Senate at a time when all public officials should be unified in the fight against violence and terror. So while I am inclined to support this measure, I am also inclined to support amendments that would improve it. For many years, we have watched with growing concern as terrorist violence has escalated--and reached closer to home. We can no longer ignore the fact that post-cold-war violence knows no borders, and respects no distinction between soldiers and innocents. Mr. President, fundraising for international terrorism now has roots in America--and it has even reached the [[Page S7774]] Midwest. In fact, in 1993 a group of Palestinian immigrants, linked to the infamous Abu Nidal terrorist organization, actively raised money here for terrorism abroad. Surprisingly, this terrorist cell extended from St. Louis, MO, to Dayton, OH, to Racine, WI. After their arrest, three of the men were accused of plotting to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington. They admitted to smuggling money and information, buying weapons, and planning terrorist activities. In July 1994 they pleaded guilty to Federal Racketeering charges. Given these growing threats to American lives, both at home and abroad, it makes sense for Congress to create a comprehensive Federal criminal statute to be used against domestic and international terrorists, and to choke off fundraising by terrorist organizations. Such legislation is not a panacea but, by clarifying and elaborating on our current laws it could provide law enforcement with more effective tools in their fight to protect us. Unfortunately, while S. 735 accomplishes some of these laudable goals, it moves far beyond areas directly affecting terrorism and into issues--such as habeas corpus reform--that have frayed the consensus that Americans expect from us when their safety is at risk. Now, let us be clear: Many criminal appeals are frivolous, and the often convoluted habeas process is in need of reform. However, this divisive issue should be thoroughly debated on its own--not as a last minute attachment to a 160-page terrorism proposal. Moreover, attaching habeas reform to this bill opens the door to other issues that should be considered elsewhere. For example, others seem encouraged to offer amendments relating to arms sales, perjury, identification cards, and immigration. If these amendments are attached, this bill will become a christmas tree. And if these proposals are accepted, then I will consider offering my amendment to address the Supreme Court's concerns regarding gun free school zones. After all, this is one bill that will certainly be signed into law quickly. Beyond these concerns regarding habeas corpus reform, I also have some substantive concerns regarding the core antiterrorism provisions of this bill, just as I had with the Clinton bill. Specifically, I believe that S. 735 has not adequately addressed the constitutional objections that Members from both sides of the aisle have raised over the preceding months. While the substitute does address some of these concerns, it often creates more problems than it solves. For example, the current bill entirely deletes the licensing provisions of the President's fundraising proposal. While the original provision was already flawed, the Republican cure is worse than the disease. While we need to stop the flow of money to terrorist organizations, we also need to be sure that our final product allows groups to raise funds for nonviolent, legitimate political purposes. An overly broad ban--with no safety valve--may infringe upon the first amendment rights of donors to provide financial support to legitimate organizations of their choice. Similarly, the alien deportation provisions of S. 735 may undermine the due process rights of legal resident aliens. Specifically, these aliens should have some right to review--and challenge--evidence that the Government has marshalled against them. After all, none of us would want to be caught up in a kafkaesque procedure that takes place entirely behind closed doors. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' In closing, Mr. President, we should not use this antiterrorism bill as a vehicle for moving a partisan agenda forward, destroying a rare consensus in the process. Moreover, in fighting terrorists, we must not be frightened into weakening the Constitution that we have sworn to uphold. Therefore, I hope we agree to several amendments to address these problems, so that we may present the American people with legislation that strengthens our defenses against terrorism, without weakening our commitment to the Constitution.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Bradley to restore funding for the earned income tax credit. The Bradley amendment would restore the EITC by redirecting $16.9 billion of the proposed $170 billion budget surplus to working lower income Americans. Simply stated, the Bradley amendment offers a clear choice to the Members of this body: We can impose a $16.9 billion do people to bear some portion of the economic sacrifice necessary to restore our Nation's economic vitality. Mr. President, tax expenditures are one of the fastest growing items in the Federal budget. Over the next 7 years, the U.S. Government will spend in excess of $4 trillion--that's right, trillion--on tax writeoffs, loopholes, and hidden breaks. And while there are some tax expenditures that help middle- and lower-income Americans, most of our tax expenditures end up benefiting the upper end of the economic ladder. The budget before us today does not touch tax benefits for the wealthy and powerful. We all know that situation exists because the special interests that benefit from our current tax scheme have both the resources and ability to protect their advantages. On the other hand, Americans who rely on the EITC are too busy working--or worrying about their childrens' health or education--or struggling to make ends meet in these challenging and difficult times--to know that the Congress is about to hit them with a hidden tax increase. Because that is just what a reduction in the ETIC is--a tax increase. Mr. President, the EITC provides a tangible economic incentive to lower income Americans to work for a living. In my own State of Wisconsin, 2,294,126 returns were filed for the 1993 tax year. Of this total, 189,831 returns contained earned income tax credit refunds, and a total of $182,548,000 in EITC refunds were paid to Wisconsin citizens. The average refund in Wisconsin was $961.63. Now that might not sound like a lot of money to some people from other parts of the country--or even to some in this Chamber. But make no mistake about it, to the Wisconsin taxpayers who qualified for those refunds, they made the difference between work and welfare; between hard work and a hand- out; and between self-worth and self-doubt. Mr. President, I also recognize that few things in this world are perfect, and that includes the earned income tax credit. As a number of my colleagues have correctly observed, there are deficiencies in the current administration of this credit. In particular, Senators have identified problems associated with electronically filed tax returns that contain EITC claims. And while there is some disagreement over the severity of the problems, it is clear to all concerned that remedial action is required. The choice that we face today is whether we will retain the EITC and effect bipartisan reforms or whether we will drastically reduce one of the few tax expenditures that helps working class Americans. I would urge my colleagues to continue the bipartisan approach that has been the hallmark of the EITC. My colleagues may recall that Presidents Reagan and Bush worked with Democratic Congresses to develop and expand the EITC. I hope that this Congress will continue that bipartisan spirit. Mr. President, we are at an important crossroad in our history. We in Government have finally heard the message of the American people: That it is time to put our fiscal house in order. We must now decide whether we share the burdens that confront us equally or whether we exacerbate the growing disparities that exist within our society. I believe that the Bradley amendment is a step in the right direction. Senator Bradley's amendment is a fair and reasonable proposal that helps working Americans. I therefore urge my colleagues--on both sides of the asile--to support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I did finish.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, as we debate the fiscal year 1996 budget, I would like to discuss some of the principles I hope this year's budget embodies. I believe these are bipartisan principles that the majority of Americans and majority of Senators can support. I would like to talk today about a budget that is balanced, both financially balanced and balanced in the sacrifices it asks Americans to make. There is no question about our need to get to a balanced budget--and to get to a balanced budget in 7 years--but we must get there in a manner that does not do damage to our economy or to the basic principles of our democracy. We must balance the budget, but we must do it in a way that is fair and is perceived to be fair by all Americans. That is my central criticism of the plan before us. It asks that the budget be balanced entirely by sacrifices from elderly Americans, middle-class and lower income Americans, and students, and it asks nothing from the wealthiest among us. I support a balanced budget. I voted for the balanced budget amendment that was defeated earlier this year. And I support a balanced budget by the year 2002. I am pleased that we are starting this debate with the Budget Committee plan that gets to balance in 2002, and I hope that we end up with a budget that does, indeed, get to balance by 2002. We all know why it is essential to get to the balanced budget. Simply put, our economic survival depends on it. Our almost $5 trillion in Government debt is money taken directly away from private sector investment. The interest payments that are now our third largest spending program are dollars which are totally wasted. They are dollars we cannot spend educating our children, paving our roads, or providing tax relief to middle-income American families. And, just as bad, our mounting Federal debt pulls up interest rates and threatens our standing as a world economic power. With each year of deficits adding to that debt, we are rolling the dice: Will this be the year that the world turns its back on a country that cannot stop spending more than it takes in? So there is no question that our current fiscal irresponsibility is not sustainable. There is no question that we have to balance the budget if we want to reassert control over our economy and our destiny. The only question is how are we going to achieve this balance. Balancing the budget is a huge undertaking. It requires immediate reductions in Government services and real sacrifices from the American people. I believe the American people will respond to this challenge but only if the challenge is considered to be fair. We need to balance the budget in a way that brings our Nation together in pursuit of the common good and not in a way that would drive us apart in pursuit of partisan political gain or just monetary gain for a few interests. Achieving solvency is vital to our Nation's strength, but solvency alone will not make us strong. After all, a family is not strong only because its checkbook balances. A family is strong because it has strong values. Our country is the same. We need to balance our books. But if we do so in a way that pushes us apart, then we will find we have bought fiscal balance at the cost of values that make our democracy strong, values like equality of opportunity and fairness and compassion. As most of us know or should know, there exists a very disturbing trend toward increasing inequality in our country today. The wealthiest among us are getting wealthier and everybody else is losing ground. Between 1973 and 1993, the wealthiest 20 percent of American families saw their incomes increased 25 percent while the poorest 20 percent saw their incomes decline by 15 percent, all in real terms. And families in the middle of the income distribution in this country saw very little, if any, increase in their average income over the same period. Today, 1 percent of the households in our country control about 40 percent of the Nation's wealth. Households that have net worth above $180,000--the most well off 20 percent of American families--control a full 80 percent of America's wealth. And this trend is increasing. This concentration of wealth is more by far than is found in any other industrialized country. Mr. President, our divisions are not just among income classes. They are among generations as well. Our poverty rate is 25 percent for children under 6 years old and only half of that for our senior citizens. These growing inequalities have produced a vicious and unproductive cycle because poor children are poor students and poor students are poor workers. Poor workers are poor wage earners and poor producers, and no one wins in this sort of an economy. The inequality fuels the enemies of democracy, things like resentment and fear, anger, and misunderstanding. In balancing the budget, we must not exacerbate these inequalities. We must balance our books but not by knocking off balance the ladder of opportunity that should allow every American working family to work toward a better life and a better standard of living. In my judgment, unfortunately, the Republican budget proposal moves us in the opposite direction. Instead of helping lower income children out of the cycle of poverty by investing in education and child nutrition, this budget slashes Medicaid for children, takes $14 billion out of student aid, and cuts $34 billion out of nutrition programs. Instead of proposing ways to help working families stretch their precious dollars, the budget proposal before us reduces the earned- income tax credit by $21 billion. That is, it raises taxes on our lowest income taxpayers. And instead of offering constructive suggestions on reducing the huge medical costs that overwhelm our senior citizens, the budget before us includes one-quarter of $1 trillion in unspecified Medicare costs. The policy of the Republican budget for upper income taxpayers is exactly the opposite of this. It asks nothing from upper income Americans and wealthy corporations in our effort to balance the budget. It allows tax expenditures which are special tax subsidies that give benefit mostly to wealthy Americans and corporations to grow by almost 49 percent over the next 7 years, faster than any other category of spending. In short, this budget gets to balance without any help from the 2 percent of our wealthiest Americans who control the bulk of our country's wealth and without help from the biggest corporations that stand to gain the most from a reinvigorated economy. Mr. President, in my judgment, this is not a fair plan. Working middle-income families will not and should not tolerate unremitting reductions in their standard of living to finance special-interest tax breaks. If we are to come together as a country to solve our deficit problem and if we are to come together as a bipartisan Congress to balance the budget, we have to support a plan that asks something from everyone. I am ready to support such a plan. I am ready to work with the Republican majority, Democrats, and anyone else who wants to balance the budget in a fair and a balanced manner. It may not happen this week, but soon when we are all done scoring political points, Mr. President, I believe we will sit down together and draft a budget that contains the best and the fairest proposals from both parties. That will be a budget that balances fiscally. It will also be a budget that is balanced in the sacrifices it asks from all Americans and in the opportunities that it provides for all Americans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Medicare Select Program. The bill we are considering extends Medicare Select for 5 years and allows all States to participate. Fifteen States are currently allowed to take part in this program which provides older Americans with a managed care alternative to supplement their Medicare benefits. We have a strong managed care tradition in Wisconsin. Many seniors had managed care options during their employment and wish to maintain that choice of care as they retire. Medicare Select provides that opportunity and is very popular in my State. Mr. President, if we do not act on this legislation, Medicare Select will terminate on June 30. Over 26,000 Medicare recipients in Wisconsin will face increased premiums and limited choices. 450,000 older Americans in the 15 States will be hit with higher costs if the program is not extended. At a time when the majority party is pursuing a budget proposal that cuts Medicare by $256 billion--which would greatly increase out-of- pocket costs for older American's and ration care--we should not kill a program that currently saves money for older Americans and expands their options. Detractors from this bill suggest that before we act, we should wait until a study being conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services is completed later this summer. Or will it be completed in December? No one seems to know when it will be ready. The fact is, Mr. President, the study was due this past January. What's the holdup? There is one date that I am certain of--June 30, 1995--the date when Medicare Select will terminate. I am eager to see the results of the study I just mentioned. I believe it will have important ramifications on the future of managed care and Medicare. [[Page S6797]] But we must not hold Medicare Select beneficiaries hostage until a date uncertain. During debate today, concerns have been raised about premium rating based on age and one-time open enrollment periods under medigap policies. I agree that these concerns should be addressed. However, these issues relate to all MediGap policies, not just Medicare Select. We should not single out those who benefit from Medicare Select in order to iron out differences in overall MediGap policy. We can and should review these issues under Medicare reform and broader health care reform legislation. Medicare Select works for older people in Wisconsin. It saves beneficiaries from 20 to 30 percent in premium costs than under traditional medigap policies. Medicare Select plans are subject to the same regulations as other medigap policies which are regulated by the States. Select plans must offer sufficient access, have an ongoing quality assurance program, and provide full disclosure of network requirements. The program saves money for Medicare recipients, does not cost the Federal Government, and perhaps most importantly, provides many beneficiaries and providers their first exposure to managed care. Mr. President, time is running out. I urge my colleagues to support and extend Medicare Select.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 1995--to address a problem that threatens Americans' confidence in our Bankruptcy Code. The measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter 7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question that debtors should be able to keep roofs over their heads. But in practice this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse. Under section 522 of the code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home according to local, State or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while a few States allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of States have exemptions of under $40,000. My amendment to section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home. Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the 8 States that have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought multi- million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only those whose lawyers can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider trading convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect their ill- gotten gains through this loophole. One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot beachfront home worth $3.25 million, all tucked away from the $2.75 billion in suits against him. These deadbeats get wealthier while legitimate creditors--including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick. Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a head start, under the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that remains out of control, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as hard as possible for those responsible to profit from their wrongs. Mr. President, the legislation I have introduced today is simple, effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption at $100,000, which is close to the average price of an American house. And it will protect middle class Americans while preventing the abuses that are making the American middle class question the integrity of our laws. Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of $40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient. Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws more equitable. We owe it to the average American to ensure that the Bankruptcy Code is more than just a beachball for millionaires who want to protect their assets. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure, and I ask that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in light of the recent bombing in Oklahoma City, I rise today to speak about a related, but equally serious problem confronting both the world community and the United States. This problem is international terrorism. As a world superpower, the United States has an obligation to help maintain peace and stability and to promote democracy throughout the globe. By doing this we create and strengthen many international friendships. At the same time, however, we encounter those who disagree with our goals and actions. Most of this criticism comes peacefully; some of it, unfortunately, comes violently. The culmination of this violence results in such incidents as the bombing of Pan Am flight 109--where 189 Americans died over Locherbie, Scotland--or the bombing of the World Trade Center, where 6 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 were injured by a terrorist act on our own soil. Fortunately, these large scale anti-American incidents are more the exception than the rule. However, American citizens are often the victims of many smaller international terrorist incidents. Of course, this does not mean that the average American citizen should fear a terrorist attack while walking to the local grocery store. In fact, between 1988 and 1994 there were only 10 terrorist attacks throughout all of North America, compared with the 973 attacks in Latin America, 906 in Western Europe, and 628 in the Middle East. Relatively speaking, Americans are still quite safe in their own country. The problem occurs when U.S. citizens are working, living, and traveling abroad. In fact, in 1994 approximately 21 percent of all terrorist attacks were directed at American targets. This, Mr. President, is a relatively large percentage. Since Americans can be found in every corner of the Earth, it would be near impossible for the U.S. Government to ensure the safety of all of its nationals. What, then, can be done to help protect American nationals and their property from the threat of terrorism? The answer: We must strike at the roots of international terrorist organizations. This, Mr. President, is the goal of the Omnibus Counter- Terrorism Act of 1995, which I introduced along with Senators Biden, Specter, and others. This legislation will make it a crime to raise funds within the United States for terrorist organizations while simultaneously enhancing the Government's ability to expel those aliens who are, or have been, engaged in terrorist activities. Mr. President, the sad truth is that fundraising for international terrorism now has its roots in America--and has even reached the Midwest. In fact, in 1993 a group of Palestinian immigrants, linked to the infamous Abu Nidal terrorist organization, actively raised money here for terrorism abroad. Surprisingly, this terrorist cell extended from St. Louis to Dayton to Racine, WI. After their arrest, three of the men were accused of plotting to kill American Jews and to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington on behalf of the Abu Nidal. They admitted to smuggling money and information, buying weapons, and planning terrorist activities. In July 1994, they pleaded guilty to Federal racketeering charges. How can we work as hard to fight terrorism abroad, but allow foreign terrorism to flourish within our own borders? The Omnibus Counter- Terrorism Act will put an end to this ironic situation. Mr. President, our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. This bill will create a comprehensive Federal criminal statue to be used against international terrorists, while expanding current U.S. antiterrorism laws to apply to any terrorist attack on a U.S. citizen, regardless of location. By clarifying and elaborating on our current laws, this bill takes a firm and stand against terrorism both in the United States and abroad. Mr. President, our Nation has the responsibility to promote stability and to protect our citizens throughout the world. International terrorists, however, undermine these goals and sabotage American interests. The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995 is not a perfect piece of legislation--we do need to make changes so that we do not circumscribe civil liberties. Nevertheless, this bill does take a step toward combating international terrorism. By preventing terrorist fundraising and enhancing antiterrorist laws, this act will strike at the roots of terrorism. Not only will it help to make the world safe for Americans, it will help to make the world safe for all.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sorrow at the passing of my good friend, Max H. Karl. He died on April 19, at the age of 85. Max was a man of vision, intellect, action, and compassion. He lived life to its fullest extent as a family man, a business man, a philanthropist, a civic minded citizen, and as a man devoted to his faith. Max Karl was a good friend not only to myself and my family, but to all of those who had the good fortune to come into contact with him. At this time, I also extend my heartfelt condolences to his family. Max is survived by his wife Anita, his son Dr. Robert Karl of Miami, daughter Karyn Schwade of Miami, sister Minnie Friedman of Milwaukee, his brother Dr. Michael Karl of St. Louis, and nine grandchildren. Mr. President, Max Karl was a man who was devoted to his family, his community and his work. He was a son of Wisconsin, who in every way contributed to the betterment of those around him. Max was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and its law school. He was the founder and chairman of the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp., headquartered in my hometown of Milwaukee. Max also served as past president of the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America and as a director of First Wisconsin Corp. and MGIC affiliates. In the public arena, Max served as a member of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's advisory committee; the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association Chamber of Commerce; the National Association of Home Builders Roundtable; and was a member of the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee's School of Business Administration Advisory Council. Max Karl's other civic activities included serving as a director of the Grand Avenue Corp.; the Greater Milwaukee Committee; the Milwaukee Art Museum; the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra; and the United Performing Arts Fund. Max was also a past trustee of Mt. Sinai Medical Center; Alverno College; the National Multiple Sclerosis Society; and a trustee emeritus of Marquette University. Among the many awards and commendations he received in recognition of his charitable and civic work, Max was the 1962 recipient of the National Home and House Award; the 1973 recipient of the State of Israel Golda Meir Award; the 1982 Milwaukee Press Club Headliner Award winner; the 1985 Children's Outing Association Father of the Year; and most recently, in 1994, Max Karl was named to the UWM School of Business Administration ``Wisconsin Gallery'' of leading corporate citizens. Max Karl was also a giant in the Milwaukee Jewish Community who, among his other accomplishments, served as a past president of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation; a former chairman of Wisconsin State of Israel Bonds; a member of the boards of Hillel Academy and the former Milwaukee Jewish Home. He also served on the boards of the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science; Americans for a Safe Israel; American and the United Jewish appeal. Mr. President, Max Karl was a man who used his time on this Earth fully and judiciously, and in so doing he created a rich legacy that will stand forever. He improved the lives of many, many thousands of people. He was greatly respected and much loved. He will be missed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today as a supporter of product liability reform to discuss an important issue which this reform effort has so far failed to address and I believe should be addressed. The problem is excessive court secrecy. Far too often the court system allows vital information that is discovered in product liability litigation and which directly bears on public health and safety to be covered up, to be shielded from families whose lives are potentially at stake and from the public officials that we have appointed to protect our health and safety. All this happens because of the so-called protective orders, which are really gag orders, issued by courts and which are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that without secrecy, they will refuse to pay a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances, and while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not, because both sides have agreed and judges have other matters that they prefer to attend to. So, Mr. President, secrecy has become the rule in civil litigation, even though it causes harm and suffering to millions of other Americans. For example, 1 million women who received silicon breast implants in the 1980's were denied crucial information demonstrating the hazards of implants. The information was uncovered in a 1984 lawsuit, but it was kept secret by a court order until 1992. So what do we say to these women? How do we, as a civilized society, justify the secrecy orders that prevented them from making informed choices about what they were putting into their bodies? What do we say to the scores of young children injured while playing on defective merry-go-rounds that remained on the market for over a decade because many lawsuit settlements concerning this sickening product were kept secret from the public and from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These children, most of them under 6 years of age, lost their fingers, their hands, and feet. Another case involves Fred Barbee, a Wisconsin resident whose wife, Carol, died because of a defective heart valve. We learned in a Judiciary Committee hearing more than 4 years ago from Mr. Barbee that months and years before his wife died, the valve manufacturer had quietly, and without public knowledge, settled dozens of lawsuits in which the valve defects were clearly demonstrated. So when Mrs. Barbee's valve malfunctioned, she rushed to a health clinic in Spooner, WI, thinking, as did her doctors, that she was suffering from a heart attack. As a result of this misdiagnosis, Mrs. Barbee was treated incorrectly, and she died. To this day, Mr. Barbee believes that but for the secret settlement of heart valve lawsuits, he and his wife would have been aware of the valve defect and his wife would be alive today. As a last example, Mr. President, let me tell you about a family which we must call the Does because they are under a secrecy order and afraid to use their own names when talking to us. The Does were the victims of a tragic medical malpractice that resulted in serious brain damage to their child. A friend of the Does is using the same doctor, but Mrs. Doe is terrified of saying anything to her friend for fear of violating the secrecy order that governs her lawsuit settlement. Mrs. Doe is afraid that if she talks, the defendant in her case will suspend the ongoing settlement payments that allow her to care for her injured child. What sort of court system prohibits a woman from telling her friend that her child might be in danger? Mr. President, the more disturbing question is this: What other secrets are currently held under lock and key which could be saving lives if they were made public? Last year, during debate on the product liability bill, we began a discussion about court secrecy reform, and we should continue that discussion today. I favor a simple change in the system that would not prohibit secrecy but merely send a signal to judges to more carefully consider the public interest before drawing the veil of confidentiality over crucial information. That change would work as follows: In cases affecting public health and safety, courts would apply a balancing test. They could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public's need to know about potential health or safety hazards. This change in the law would ensure that courts do not carelessly and automatically sanction secrecy when the health and safety of the American public is at stake. At the same time, it would still allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. The court secrecy reform I have suggested is not antibusiness. Business people want to know about dangerous and defective products, and they want regulatory agencies to have the information necessary to protect the public. And so in summary, Mr. President, the product liability bill that we are debating today is all about striking a better, more reasonable balance between plaintiffs and defendants in product liability lawsuits. The change that I propose in our court secrecy laws is also about striking a better balance in product liability lawsuits, a better balance between the private parties involved in litigation and the millions of American consumers who today are being kept in the dark in many cases because of court secrecy. I hope my colleagues who support product liability reform will recognize the need to deal with this very serious issue. Reform, after all, is a two-way street. I thank the Chair and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Judiciary Committee law clerk, Julie Selsberg, be given floor privileges during the debate on the product liability legislation. ordered.

Mr. KOHL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.