Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today for just a few moments to express my admiration and appreciation and my respect for David Pryor, our colleague, who has announced that he will not be running for reelection next year. For those of us in Washington and, of course, for those people in public life all over the country, we meet all manner of different human beings, both in terms of the constituents that we meet and, of course, the colleagues with whom we work. While none are bad, some are different from others and some are better and some are best. And in the category of best, I would put David Pryor, the best kind of a human being, the best kind of a friend, the best kind of a public representative. The people in Arkansas know very well what an outstanding person David Pryor is and what a great public servant David Pryor has been. He is beloved by virtually everybody in Arkansas to the extent that when he ran for reelection last time, he had no opposition, and had he run for reelection in 1996, it is undoubtedly true that he would have received an enormous majority of the votes cast in that election. So David Pryor's record of accomplishment and achievement, the esteem in which he is held by people in Arkansas, is well known. Those of us here who have worked with him in the Senate are equally well aware of what it is that David Pryor has accomplished and what kind of a person he is. In my judgment, David Pryor is the best kind of a public servant, the best kind of a Senator, for many reasons, chief among which, in my judgment, is the fact that he is a person who can and does work with all of his colleagues, regardless of which side of the aisle they happen to occupy. I believe that is an enormous virtue in a public servant, and that it is invaluable in the Senate where, in order to get things done in a constructive fashion, in order to keep the place working, people have to have a willingness and an ability to compromise their differences in order to get things passed, in order to keep legislation moving and, more importantly perhaps, in order to assure the people that we represent all over the country that this is an institution that can work. David Pryor understands that as well as anybody I have met in my now 6 years here in the Senate. He practices that. Although we Democrats, of course, know how comfortable and how easy it is to work with him, I know it is equally true that Republicans recognize in David Pryor a person who, more than anything else, wants to get things done and in no way, ever, is interested in just impeding the work of the Senate. So he is an outstanding person. Personally, David Pryor, when I came here 6 years ago, befriended me immediately. He went out of his way, recognizing that I was new to the process, and he went out of his way to see to it that I got along here and got to know my colleagues, got to know a little bit about how the Senate works, and in every way and at every turn, when I ran up against an obstacle or had a problem I did not know how to deal with, I felt comfortable talking to him. He was always receptive and always willing to put aside whatever it was he was occupied with in order to take care of my needs and to help ensure that I became a working Member of this body. So David Pryor has been not only a great Senator but he has been a wonderful human being. I think that we can celebrate what he has accomplished in his career here in the Senate and celebrate it in a way which really does not, in any way, suggest that his career is over. He is not running for reelection in 1996. He says he wants to return to the private sector. Whatever he does, he is going to be good and effective at it. He is a person of public service, and his career in politics may go on at another time in another place and in another job. If it does, we will all be very well served. So David Pryor, we love you and we respect you. We have great regard for what you have accomplished here among us, and we wish you well during these next 18 months when you will continue to serve with us. We certainly wish you, Barbara, and your family continued good health and happiness as you wend your way along the path of life. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am quite disappointed and even puzzled today by the Supreme Court's decision in the United States versus Lopez case. Usually, the courts speak with one voice, but today the majority of the court spoke for several separate opinions. By a slim 5 to 4 margin, the court struck down the bipartisan Gun- Free School Zones Act, a law that prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. In my judgment, this is a classic example of judicial activism, and it ignores the safety of our American children. I will briefly say something about the facts that the court today ignored. Each day in our country more than 100,000 students bring guns into our schools. One-fifth of urban high school students have been threatened with firearms, and several hundred thousand schoolchildren are victims of violent crimes in or near their schools every year. Moreover, the problem of youth violence is rapidly escalating. In 1984, a total of 1,134 juveniles were arrested for murder; by 1993, that figure had more than doubled. According to the Justice Department, the vast majority with handguns. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, together, tried to do something about this disturbing trend when we enacted the gun-free school zones legislation in 1990. Today, a slim majority of the court has shot Congress down, and in so doing, put America's children at greater risk. Now, because we reenacted and perfected the Gun-Free School Act last year as part of the crime bill, the current law may still be constitutional. Indeed, we may yet be able to ensure the constitutionality of the law with a technical amendment, and I plan to introduce a bill to do that next week. Broadly interpreted, however, the reasoning of the majority in this case could have far-reaching consequences that may undermine a variety of crucial Federal laws, like the Drug-Free School Zones Act on which the Gun-Free School Zones Act was based, or the bans on cop-killer bullets, or our Federal wetlands laws, and many of our civil rights statutes. Mr. President, I agree with the strong dissent by Judge Souter, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer, who labeled this ruling today by the Supreme Court a step backward. I again want to express my disappointment with today's decision. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent, and with permission from the Senators Rockefeller and Gorton, I be allowed to speak as in morning business for a brief period.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Juvenile Corrections Act of 1995, which I am proud to sponsor with my friend and colleague, Senator Specter. The act dedicates approximately 10 percent of the 1994 Crime Act's adult prison resources to the construction and operation of State and local juvenile corrections facilities. Juvenile violence, as we all know, is at the heart of the crime problem in America. Every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime in the United States; every 2 hours a child dies of a gunshot wound. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that this problem may get worse before it gets better. Demographics tell us that between now and the year 2000, the cohort of children between the ages of 14-17 will increase by more than 1 million. The likely result: a serious increase in the number of violent juvenile offenders in the coming years--above already unacceptable levels. Despite this state of affairs, the Federal Government has treated juvenile corrections as the poor stepchild of the Federal anticrime effort. The 1994 Crime Act contained billions of dollars for policing and adult prisons at the State and local level, but no significant program to help States alleviate the increasing burdens on their juvenile corrections systems. These burdens are real and substantial, Mr. President. A recent Department of Justice survey indicated that the majority of juvenile corrections facilities nationwide are seriously overcrowded and understaffed--in short, bursting at the seams. Between 1979 and 1991, juvenile detention centers faced a 30 percent increase in daily average population--a gain of about 65,000 youthful offenders. As a result of the demographic trend we highlighted above, we will probably see even worse overcrowding in the future. Mr. President, the consequences of overcrowding should trouble us all. In part due to the combination of overcrowding and understaffing, juvenile offenders attacked detention facility staff 8,000 times in 1993. In countless U.S. cities, juvenile offenders who require detention are nonetheless released into the community because of a lack of space. And finally, it is clear that overcrowding breeds violence and ever more violent juvenile offenders who, when eventually released, are much more dangerous to society than when they were first institutionalized. For all these reasons, we introduce today the Juvenile Corrections Act. Our legislation provides crucial assitance--$770 million in funding over 5 years--to State and local governments for the construction, expansion, and operation of juvenile corrections facilities and programs. And, I should note, the act has no impact on the deficit, as it draws its funding from the $8 billion adult corrections component of the 1994 Crime Act. Mr. President, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the juvenile corrections problem. So I hope my colleagues will join with me and Senator Specter to enact the Juvenile Corrections Act. In light of the spiralling juvenile violence problem, we believe it makes good sense to dedicate roughly 10 percent of the crime act's adult prison resources to State and local juvenile corrections.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I would like to tell you a story about criminals and guns. It is about someone--let us call him John Doe because the B-A-T-F says it cannot disclose his identity--who in 1978 was convicted of criminal reckless homicide. He killed another driver while driving drunk. Although, as a convicted felon, John Doe was prohibited by law from buying guns, he purchased a handgun from a gun dealer in December 1993. Then, only 1 month later in January 1994, he purchased another. On both occasions he walked out of the gun store fully armed. How could he do this? He lied on his forms and no one conducted a background check. A few weeks later John Doe tried to increase his arsenal yet again by purchasing a third handgun. But this last time he was caught--thanks to the background check that is now required under the Brady law. of the vicious shooting of President Reagan and Jim Brady by John Hinckley. And last month marked the first anniversary of the effective day of the Brady bill. Critics claimed that Brady would mark an end to personal freedom, and that felons and drug traffickers would never buy guns over the counter. But 1 year after enactment, the sky has not fallen. And the Brady law-- for the most part--is accomplishing its goal: Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and drug traffickers, while not unduly inconveniencing law abiding gun owners. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, over the past year in the 29 States covered by Brady, the law prevented approximately 40,000 firearms purchases. Indeed, when States with their own background checks are added in, B-A-T-F estimates that law enforcement denied up to 70,000 gun purchases in the past year. That means fugitives, rapists and murderers have been stopped while trying to purchase guns. Statistics from my State support these conclusions. Wisconsin, which has its own 2 day waiting period and background check, has blocked more than 800 convicted felons from buying handguns in the past 3 years. And keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, Mr. President, is the most effective form of prevention--as well as the best way to ensure the safety of the community. But while the background check and waiting period have stopped gun sales to criminals, authorities need to do more to prosecute the criminals who try to buy guns. CBS news found that only 551 people had been prosecuted in 19 States. And according to the Washington Post, fewer than 10 have been prosecuted federally. These figures just do not add up. We need to do a better job of putting these people behind bars. In my opinion, if you lie on the Brady Act form you should go to jail. Period. That is the law. Mr. President, the police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officers know the real truth: The Brady law has proven to be an effective tool in helping to keep handguns out of the wrong hands. And the American people agree: The latest CBS News/New York Times poll found that 87 percent support the Brady law. In conclusion, Mr. President, on this anniversary all of us should express our gratitude and appreciation to Sarah and Jim Brady. We would not be where we are today without their hard work.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise before you today to pay tribute to the distinguished winner of the Wisconsin Business Leader of the Year Award for 1994. George D. Dalton, chairman and chief executive officer of Fiserv, Inc., has been selected to receive this prestigious award which is presented annually by the Harvard Business School Club of Wisconsin and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper. George, a cofounder of Fiserv, Inc., has played an integral role in making this company one of the largest data processing firms for financial institutions in the United States. Fiserv, Inc., now serves more than 5,000 financial institutions and has operations in 62 cities world wide. In the last decade, Fiserv, Inc., has grown from fewer than 300 employees with revenues of $24 million to 6,700 employees with year-end 1994 revenues of $563 million. I am proud of the contributions George has made to Wisconsin and the Nation and am pleased to have their opportunity to congratulate him on winning this award.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Three minutes.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment which completely eliminates the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program helps low-income elderly, the disabled, and working poor to cover a portion of the heating of their homes. Mr. President, the bill we are considering today is a disaster relief bill. It is about helping people fight back against the wrath of nature, whether it be floods, earthquakes or other natural emergencies. When disaster strikes, Americans band together to help those who are down on their luck and to afford everyday necessities. Heat, food and shelter are everyday necessities, Mr. President. Low- income families and the elderly who must confront bitter cold weather year in and year out are no less deserving of compassion than victims of a flood or earthquake. The House made the unfortunate decision to eliminate or kill LIHEAP. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the direction of the distinguished Senator from Oregon and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, wisely rejected this cut. Home energy costs consume an unreasonably high portion of resources for those with limited incomes, particularly during harsh winters. My colleague from Arizona is fortunate to come from a warm-weather State. In fact, many people from my own State of Wisconsin retired to his fine State because of the very appealing weather. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to leave their homes to avoid the cold. Often, low-income families and the elderly are forced to choose between food, medicine or heat. Mr. President, this is a choice that no one should have to make in our country. Although we must cut Federal spending and we must control our deficit, it should not be done at the expense of people's health and safety. We must preserve LIHEAP and reject the House cut. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL. All right.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I would like to take just a minute or two to say a few words about our friend, Howell Heflin. I was not able to get here earlier when Senator Heflin was on the floor. Along with all the many kind things that were said about him, I would like to add my own strong feelings of affection for one of the finest Members of the U.S. Senate that we have ever had in our country. And that is, of course, Howell Heflin who is retiring. I have gotten to know Howell very well over the last 6 years. He is a man of unquestioned integrity and intelligence. Howell Heflin is a person who has the capacity for great friendship and compassion for people. He is a person who always has dealt straightforwardly and honestly with his colleagues and with his constituents. He is the kind of a man that--if we had 100 people like him, this would be an even finer institution by far than it is today, and it would be a much better country even than we are today. He sets an example of all the best things in public service, for his constituents in Alabama, and for people all across this country. You have been a role model to me, a mentor and a friend. I, along with our colleagues, am going to miss you and the qualities that you represent as a legislator, as a Senator, and as a human being. So along with the rest of us, I send you my respect and my affection and, indeed, my love. I thank the Chair. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise with great ambivalence about the legislation that we are considering today. I have expressed grave reservations about efforts to impose a regulatory moratorium, similar to that reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I believe such legislation to be extreme, because it assumes all regulations are bad, and does not allow for distinctions between necessary regulations and superfluous regulations. While I agree that we should scrutinize regulations to assure that they are justified and reasonable, I believe a straight moratorium to be irresponsible. In that context, I am pleased that a bipartisan substitute has been offered to change the focus of this bill toward a legislative veto, which allows Congress to formally review major regulations. However, even though the substitute we are considering today is reasonable, I am concerned that the regulatory moratorium concept is not dead. The House has passed moratorium legislation, and will be pushing to have that version enacted. Foremost among my concerns with a moratorium is the status of pending drinking water regulations addressing cryptosporidium. Just under 2 years ago, the residents of Milwaukee experienced a debilitating outbreak of the parasite cryptosporidium in the drinking water. Buy the time the parasite infestation had fully run its course, 104 Milwaukee residents had died, and over 400,000 had suffered from a debilitating illness. And it turns out that this problem was nothing new to this Nation. In reality, while the Milwaukee incident is the largest reported cryptosporidium outbreak in U.S. history, it is just one of many outbreaks nationwide. Other major outbreaks in recent years include a 1987 cryptosporidium outbreak in Carrollton, GA, that sickened 13,000 people, and a 1992 incident in Jackson County, OR, that caused 15,000 people to become ill. There are numerous other examples of parasite contamination nationwide. But despite these outbreaks, no regulatory actions had been taken to protect consumers against future outbreaks. With the Milwaukee disaster, the Nation finally woke up to the problem. In the aftermath of Milwaukee, EPA is now in the process of promulgating a package of regulations to require communities to test for cryptosporidium in their drinking water, and ultimately to treat the water to remove cryptosporidium threats. These regulations are long overdue and must not be delayed any further. Mr. President, I offer the cryptosporidium example to remind my colleagues that there are instances in which the Federal Government has not done enough. Much of the rhetoric of recent months has been focused on the extreme horror stories of overregulation. While some of these concerns are valid, we must also remember the horror stories of underregulation. I believe that the 104 deaths and 400,000 illnesses in Milwaukee are a testimony to the dangers of government inaction. I certainly believe that the cryptosporidium threat in this Nation safety, and should, therefore, be theoretically exempted from any regulatory moratorium bill. However, I am concerned that the bureaucratic process necessary to make a declaration of imminent threat will cause unnecessary delay and place the people of this Nation at future risk. So while I will support this substitute to establish a legislative veto, I do so with reservations about the potential of a resurrected regulatory moratorium. If such an effort is renewed in this body, I will strongly oppose such legislation. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. I am unhappy that I have to do so because I have the greatest respect for Senator Feingold and for his dedication to deficit reduction. And though I agree with 99 percent of the substance of this sense-of-the-Senate, I cannot agree with the final statement that ``enacting a * * * so-called middle-class tax cut during the 104th Congress would hinder efforts to reduce the Federal deficit.'' I would like to state for the Record that I do believe that deficit reduction is this Congress highest priority. If proposals for tax breaks--such as the $200 billion in tax breaks moving through the House--get in the way of further progress in reducing the deficit, I will oppose them. However, I believe it is possible to both make the Tax Code fairer to low- and middle-income working families and significantly reduce the deficit. For example, Congress could engage in wholesale tax reform, lowering rates for middle and lower income taxpayers while eliminating wasteful tax loopholes that benefit the rich. Such reform could be designed to reduce the deficit and make the Tax Code more equitable. I do not think the Senate should go on record right now with a sense-of-the-Senate that implies such reform is out of the question. Though this Congress has discussed in great detail the problems with our Federal budget, we have yet to start the debate on the fiscal year 1996 budget plan. At this early point in the debate, I do not believe it wise to start ruling out options--such as providing some tax relief to working families. Therefore, I will reluctantly oppose the pending sense-of-the-Senate. amendment no. 403

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey. If adopted, the Bradley amendment will allow the President to eliminate tax loopholes that benefit special interests at the expense of the American people. And while the tax expenditure language in the Dole substitute is a good first step in the right direction, the amendment offered by Senator Bradley offers definitive protection against future wasteful tax spending. Mr. President, when it comes to creative spending, the Federal Government is second to none. And one of the most creative ways that Washington spends money is through special breaks and hidden expenditures in the Tax Code. The Tax Code contains loopholes large and small that benefit every type of special interest, including, among others, an exclusion of income for rentals of 2 weeks or less and deferrals of income of foreign-controlled corporations. Mr. President, there is not enough time this morning to go through the entire list of loopholes that permeates our tax laws, but you may be assured that there is a credit, break, or writeoff for every conceivable purpose. There may have been a time when our country could afford these expenditures, but that time is over. Today, we have the opportunity to begin the process of eliminating this hidden spending if we adopt the clear and unambiguous language offered by my colleague from New Jersey. Nation's history: We can act now to balance our Federal budget or we can pass the buck to our children and leave them a legacy of debt, depression, and continued economic decline. In order to regain control of our financial situation, we need to make tough choices, and the time has arrived for the special interests to pay their dues along with the rest of us. Mr. President, at a time when we are asking the American people to accept sacrifices in the areas of housing, school lunches, and education, I believe we in Congress need to subject tax spending to the same level of scrutiny. So I urge my colleagues to support the Bradley amendment and I yield the floor. vote on motion to table amendment no. 403

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I invite the chairman of the Budget Committee to engage in a colloquy with me on section 105 of the conference report on S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. During consideration of S. 1 before the full Senate, I offered an amendment which makes clear that nothing in this legislation denies Federal funding to States, local, or tribal governments because they are already complying with all or part of a Federal mandate. That amendment is now section 105 of the bill. The conferees modified my language by stating that my amendment made reference to any mandates that are funded pursuant to section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as added by section 101 of this act. However, the report language accompanying S. 1 refers to section 425(b)(2). I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, is this reference in the conference report incorrect? language inadvertently refers to section 425(b)(2) when it should have been referring to section 425(a)(2). I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin bringing this to the Senate's attention and it is my hope that this colloquy sets the record straight on the intent of the conferees on this language.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my displeasure with action taken by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Yesterday, in their markup of regulatory moratorium legislation, on a party-line vote, the Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an amendment by Senator Glenn to allow long-overdue EPA regulations protecting citizens from parasite contamination in drinking water to move forward. Mr. President, just under 2 years ago, my colleagues will perhaps remember citizens of Milwaukee were dying as a result of an infestation by the parasite cryptosporidium in the city's drinking water. By the time the parasite infestation had fully run its course, 104 Milwaukee residents had died, and over 400,000 had suffered from a debilitating illness. What was the cause of the infestation? Government inaction. While we can all talk at length, and with good justification, about examples of over-regulation, we must recognize that there are instances in which the Federal Government has not done enough to protect our citizens. Mr. President, parasite contamination in drinking water is one of those cases. The 104 deaths and 400,000 illnesses in Milwaukee are but one example attesting to that fact. In reality, while the Milwaukee incident is the largest reported outbreak in U.S. history, it is just one of many outbreaks nationwide. Other major outbreaks in recent years include a 1987 cryptosporidium outbreak in Carrollton, GA, that sickened 13,000 people, and a 1992 cryptosporidium incident in Jackson County, OR that caused 15,000 people to become ill. There are numerous other examples of parasite contamination nationwide. In reaction to the lack of Federal Government action in this area, the city of Milwaukee has gone ahead with its own efforts to protect its residents against water-borne parasites such as cryptosporidium. But other communities are still vulnerable. Mr. President, I support efforts to require a thoughtful cost-benefit justification to be made for Federal regulations. I think that that makes eminent sense given the complexity of risks that exist today. But I urge my colleagues to exercise some judgment and common sense when it comes to matters as important and as dangerous as parasite contamination in drinking water. We can sit in our towers of philosophical purity and vote party line on matters of general policy, but when it comes to life and death realities for the people of this Nation, we must use common sense. So again Mr. President, I am upset by the actions of the Governmental Affairs Committee yesterday to prevent EPA from moving forward with regulations to protect our citizens from parasite contamination in drinking water. It is my hope that when the regulatory moratorium legislation reaches the floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle will use their good common sense when it comes to clear dangers in our drinking water. We should not be voting party line, when lives are on the line.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Democratic leadership's balanced budget legislation. This legislation says two things: First, the only budget that Congress should consider is one that contains a plan that will bring us into balance; and second, in bringing our budget into balance, Congress should protect Social Security. Though there is disagreement on whether we need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, there are few who think that we should not be moving toward that goal. And though a few want Social Security on the budget cutting table, a large majority believe that we ought to balance the budget without using the Social Security trust fund. And so I do not see why the legislation that we are talking about today should not gain a huge majority vote in the U.S. Senate. Anyone who voted for the balanced budget amendment, as I did, and anyone who believes that we should not balance the budget using Social Security, as I do, should clearly support this legislation. The American people are tired of hearing us endlessly debate the idea of a balanced budget. They want to see us do something to get there. If that means changing our rules so we cannot consider a budget that is out of balance, then we ought to change our rules. And if that means Democrats and Republicans sitting down together to map out the hard cuts we need to make, then we ought to sit down together. But make no mistake, we will be held accountable if we let our work toward a balanced budget end with the defeat of the balanced budget amendment. I voted for the balanced budget amendment even though it would not take effect for years because I believe that it is imperative we get our Nation's fiscal affairs in order. I support this legislation because it does something right now to force Congress into balancing the budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on January 1 of this year, the reformulated gasoline requirements under the Clean Air Act came into effect in southeastern Wisconsin, as well as other areas around the Nation. The purpose of the reformulated gasoline requirement is to facilitate the use of cleaner-burning fuels in the areas of the country that are experiencing the most severe air pollution problems. In general, I have supported the use of reformulated gasoline as being one of the most cost-effective ways to address air pollution from mobile sources, such as automobiles. However earlier this month, citizens of southeastern Wisconsin began to experience difficulties with the new fuels. Problems have ranged from health concerns to mechanical problems to reductions in fuel efficiency. Most alarming to me are the health complaints that I have heard associated with the fumes from the reformulated gas, including nausea, itchy and burning eyes, shortness of breath, dizziness, and skin rashes. I believe that the citizens of Wisconsin strongly support the overall goal of the Clean Air Act, which is to protect human health through improved air quality. But when people are becoming sick as a result of these requirements, it only makes sense to temporarily suspend the program in question, until the health concerns are adequately addressed. On February 10 of this year, I called on EPA Administrator Carol Browner to suspend the reformulated gasoline program in Wisconsin until April 1, 1995, in order to allow citizens to purchase conventional gasoline while the health concerns associated with the reformulated fuels are being investigated. The Governor of Wisconsin had made the same request earlier that day. On February 24, I finally received the response to the request that I had made. In short, I found the response to be very inadequate. EPA did not agree to provide the temporary suspension that we had request, but instead offered to work with the oil industry to make an unspecified alternative fuel available on a limited basis. Because the EPA response to the matter does not address my concerns, I am offering legislation to require the suspension of reformulated gasoline requirements when bona fide health concerns are raised by a State where the requirements have been imposed. The bill addresses the specific problem faced by Wisconsin, without affecting the reformulated gasoline program as implemented in other regions of the Nation. The bill also establishes a process whereby a task force of Federal health and environmental officials work with the affected State to investigate the specific health concerns, and report back to Congress about their findings. The task force would also make recommendations to Congress and the State about other fuel formulations that could be used in the State, without causing the health problems that led to the suspension. Once the concerns are addressed, the reformulated gasoline program would be reinstated. Mr. President, it is not my intent to hinder the implementation of the Clean Air Act. But as I said when I supported passage of the Clean Air Act, my bottom line concern is the health of the citizens of Wisconsin. If people are getting sick, I believe that it is my responsibility to see that the health questions are addressing adequately. While I had hoped that such effort would have been handled administratively by EPA, the lack of action of the part of EPA has left no alternative but legislative action. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the comments made on this amendment by my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, regarding the extreme importance of benefits for veterans with service-connected disabilities. I could not agree more. I have heard the compelling arguments that veterans with service- connected disabilities are the most deserving and most honorable population in our society. Again, I could not agree more. These citizens have served their Nation, and have served well. However, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that we should exclude these benefits from the strictures of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I am committed to the concept of the balanced budget amendment. I am committed to the idea that the financial security of this Nation rests on the ability of the Federal Government to curb the practice of spending beyond its means. In reviewing the fiscal history of this Nation over the past 25 years, it has become clear to me that the will to exercise the necessary spending restraint does not exist within this body without a strict requirement that we do so. I believe that the balanced budget amendment provides such a framework, and that is why I support it. Clearly the Rockefeller amendment is difficult to vote against. But in listening to the debate, I believe strongly that the very arguments made by the proponents of this amendment are exactly those that will insulate veterans disability benefits from future budget cuts. I am certain that every Senator in this body would put veterans' disability benefits high on the list of expenditures to be protected. But if we are serious about passing a meaningful balanced budget amendment, then we must reject efforts to dismantle that effort through piecemeal exclusions of programs, however worthy they may be. When it comes to the annual appropriations process, of which I am an active participant as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will be at the front of the line to protect veterans' disability benefits. But as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I must object to this exclusion.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in 1993, the 103d Congress took a crucial and difficult stand on the deficit. In August of that year we passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to stand here today and say that that legislation has helped to produce falling deficits and sustained economic growth. As my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you must treat people fairly, and admit when you make a mistake. I have come to the floor today to once again acknowledge that a mistake was made in the 1993 reconciliation bill; a mistake which must be corrected. During consideration of the reconciliation bill, I opposed tax increases on working middle- and lower-income Americans. However, in fighting to eliminate increases in broad taxes on middle- and lower- income Americans, Congress overlooked a provision which places a hidden tax on those hardworking Americans who work in the transportation sector. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the business meal deduction fairness bill. Included in the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment expenses from 80 to 50 percent. On the surface, this seems only a tax on those rich enough to spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants and their nighttimes on luxury yachts. But contrary to popular belief, the business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats for three-martini lunches. Due to regulations limiting travel hours, many transportation workers must eat out. That means the reduced business meal deduction is a tax on workers who have no control over the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop to eat. Let me provide you with a brief example to illustrate my point. The average truck driver earns approximately $30,000 a year. The reduced deduction will cost that driver between $750 and $1,000 per year. This is just one of many examples I could give to demonstrate the burden this change has placed on hard-working, middle-income Americans. The legislation I am introducing today, will lift this burden and restore some common sense to the tax code. Mr. President, the business meal deduction fairness bill repeals the hidden tax created last year by restoring the business meal deduction to 80 percent for those individuals covered by the Department of Transportation hours-of-service limit. This legislation is simple, straightforward, and most importantly, fair. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a similar bill we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of thousands of hard-working, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues remember, the 1990 deficit reduction bill imposed a surtax on specific luxury items. At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only affect the wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into effect, it became clear that, instead of paying the tax, the wealthy decided not to buy the new boat or the diamond ring. As a result, the middle- and lower-income Americans producing and selling those luxury items ended up bearing the burden of the tax through lost wages and jobs. Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its intended goal, I began working with a number of my colleagues to repeal it. Fortunately, we were successful in getting a repeal in the 1993 reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, far too many people were hurt by this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We cannot let that happen again. Therefore I am requesting the support and assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the business meal deduction fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I reintroduce legislation that will help Wisconsin and several other States extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This bill 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 or who had been out of service for more than 30 years. This bill would simply remove those restrictions. 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. President, I introduce the Wisconsin Federal Judgeship Act of 1995, which would create an additional Federal judgeship for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and situate it in Green Bay, where a district court is crucially needed. Let me explain how the current system hurts--and how this additional judgeship will help-- businesses, law enforcement agents, witnesses, victims, and individual litigants in northeastern Wisconsin. The four full-time district court judges for the Eastern District of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee. Yet for most litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well over 100 miles away. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee--costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed, driving from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly 2 hours each way. Add inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as Oconto or Marinette--and the driving time alone often results in witnesses traveling for a far longer period of time than they actually spend testifying. Moreover, Mr. President, as is the case all across America, Federal crimes are on the rise in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and kidnapping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The trials for these crimes are held in Milwaukee, requiring victims and witnesses to travel a substantial amount of time, and passing on to the taxpayers the expenses for transportation, board, and housing. Mr. President, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these cases are never filed--precisely because the northern part of the State lacks a Federal court. Prosecuting cases on the Menominee Indian Reservation causes specific problems that alone justify a Federal judge in Green Bay. Under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic. And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators, and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs all of us. Mr. President, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is clearly justified on the basis of caseload. In 1994 the Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, recommended the creation of additional Federal judgeships in 16 different judicial districts. In determining where to place these judges, the Conference looked primarily at ``weighted filings,'' that is, the total number of cases filed per judge modified by the average level of case complexity. In 1994, new positions were justified where a district's workload exceeded 430 weighted filings per judge. On this basis, the Eastern District of Wisconsin clearly merits an additional judgeship: it tallied more than 435 weighted filings in 1993 and averaged 434 weighted filings per judge between 1991-93. In fact, though our bill would not add an additional judge in the Western District of Wisconsin, we could make a strong case for doing so because the average weighted filings per judge in the Western District was almost as high as in the Eastern District. Mr. President, this legislation is simple, effective, and straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the Eastern District, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives the Chief Judge of the Eastern District the flexibility to designate which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that period, more than 252 new Federal district judgeships have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin. And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who would be most affected: each and every sheriff and District Attorney in northeastern Wisconsin urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be included. This letter expresses the support of the entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA, and the BATF--for the legislation I am introducing. Perhaps most importantly, the people of Green Bay also agree on the need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of my proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates. In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial efficiency. But most importantly, it will help ensure that justice is more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern Wisconsin. As the courts are currently arranged, the northern portion of the Eastern District is more remote from a Federal court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial, in the United States. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and its House companion, H.R. 362, introduced by my good friend Representative Toby Roth. We hope to enact this measure, either separately or as part of an omnibus judgeship bill the Judiciary Committee may consider later this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, one need only read the cruel and tragic litany of terrorist incidents detailed in the first few pages of the bill we introduce today, to appreciate the need for--and importance of--this measure. Though Americans are less at risk of terrorist attack than citizens of other countries, we are not immune, and we never will be, so long as we are a democracy with open borders. The concrete barriers now gracing the entrances to the World Trade Center--and to this very building--are a stark reminder of this reality. And as a matter of both national security and morality, we cannot ignore the fact that terrorists who strike outside our borders, seek-- and receive--aid and comfort within them. This is simply intolerable. Free and open societies should not be free and open to movements and organizations that facilitate terror and wanton violence--whether in our communities, or across the world. In the past, the Federal Government has vigorously joined the battle against terrorism. But there is clearly more to be done if we are to unite with civilized countries throughout the world to protect each other and our citizens from those who obey no law. The legislation we introduce today, crafted by President Clinton, is a crucial next step in bolstering our commitment to fight international terror and politically-motivated violence. The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act contains a number of important provisions. It creates a comprehensive Federal antiterrorism statute with stiff penalties. It clarifies that U.S. antiterrorism laws apply to each and every attack against U.S. nationals, regardless of where in the world an attack occurs. This bill also solidifies the President's authority to shut down the fundraising activities of terrorist organizations on U.S. soil. And it creates a new mechanism that will facilitate the expulsion of aliens currently in the United States who are, or have, engaged in terrorist activities. Let me close by noting that the sponsors of this bill are aware that any effort to crack down on terrorism must be sensitive to civil liberties concerns. And we must also be mindful of ethnic communities that may be affected if this legislation were implemented without due care and consideration. I know that the Department of Justice has tried to keep these concerns in mind in drafting the bill we introduce today. And we stand ready to continue a discussion on this subject to ensure that our fight against terrorism is prosecuted fairly and judiciously.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Kohl pertaining to the introduction of S. 274 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')