Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I first presented in the last Congress, legislation that addresses the troubling use of secrecy in our courts, which we have been studying in the Judiciary Committee since 1990. Far too often, the court system allows vital information that is discovered in litigation, and which directly bears on public health and safety, to be covered up: to be shielded from mothers, fathers, and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have appointed to protect our health and safety. This happens because of the use of so-called protective orders-- really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Mr. President, these secrecy arrangements are far from benign. Last year, the manufacturers of silicon breast implants agreed to a record $4 billion settlement of product liability claims. Most Americans do not know that studies indicating the hazards of breast implants were uncovered as early as 1984 in litigation. But the sad truth is that because of a protective order that was issued when that case was settled, in the mid 1980's this critical knowledge remained buried, hidden from public view, and from the FDA. Ultimately, it wasn't until 1992--more than 7 years and literally tens of thousands of victims later--that the real story about silicon implants came out. How can anyone tell the countless thousands of breast implant victims that court secrecy isn't a real problem that demands our attention? And there are other unfortunate examples of court secrecy. For over a decade, Miracle Recreation, A U.S. playground equipment company, marketed a merry-go-round that caused serious injuries to scores of small children, including severed fingers and feet. Lawsuits brought against the manufacturer were confidentially settled, preventing the public and the Consumer Products Safety Commission from learning about the hazard. It took more than a decade for regulators to discover the defeat, and for the company to recall the merry-go-round. There are yet more cases which we have detailed in past hearings. But perhaps the more troubling question is, What other secrets, currently held under lock and key, could be saving lives if they were made public? Having said all this, we must in fairness recognize that there is another side to this problem. Privacy is a cherished possession, and business information is an important commodity. For this reason, the courts must, in some cases, keep trade secrets and other business information confidential. But, in my opinion, today's balance of these interests is entirely inadequate. Our legislation will 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, the bill will allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. The thrust of our legislation is straightforward. In cases affecting public health and safety, courts would be required to apply a balancing test: They could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public need to know about potential health or safety hazards. Moreover, courts could not, under the measure, issue protective orders that would prevent disclosures to regulatory agencies. In this way, our bill will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. I should note that we have made progress in this issue in the past year. A majority of members of the Judiciary Committee voted last year for a court secrecy proposal that was essentially identical to the bill we introduce today. And even the Federal judiciary has attempted to tackle the problem, through the proposal they are now advancing is, in my view, an incomplete solution. To attack the problem of excessive court secrecy is not to attack the business community. Most of the time, businesses seek protective orders for legitimate reasons. And although some critics may dispute that businesses care about public health and safety, as a former businessman, I know that they do. In closing, Mr. President, let me note that we in the country take pride in our judicial system for many good reasons. Our courts are among the finest, and the fairest in the world. But the time has come for us to ask: Fair to whom? Yes, the courts must be fair to defendants, and that is why I support product liability reform. But because the courts as public institutions, and because justice is a public good, our court system must also do its part to help protect the public when appropriate, and not just individual plaintiffs and defendants. The bill we introduce today helps achieve this important goal; it helps ensure that the public and regulators will learn about hazardous and defective products. So I look forward to the support of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--who believe, as I do, that when health and safety are at stake, there must be reasonable limit to the use of secrecy in our courts.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last week was Schools Without Violence week in the Milwaukee public schools. However, last Monday, at the same time that students in my alma mater, Washington High School, were preparing essays on a theme of ``Peace Begins with Me,'' gunshots shattered that peace. In the first shooting ever in a Milwaukee classroom, a 19-year- old former student shot a high school senior in the arm and leg. He was fortunate that he was not killed. In the aftermath, one concerned mother stated: Washington High School is a place of learning for kids. They should feel safe enough to learn. For this to happen here is unfair. Mr. President, this is not just unfair. It is unacceptable. Young people should be able to concentrate on their biology and math classes and not on avoiding bullets. Of course, there is no easy cure for the violence that is riddling our streets and ravaging our schools. We need more police, more prisons, and better family structure. However, I do believe that in the last Congress we passed three measures which can begin to make a difference: The Brady Act, the Youth Handgun Safety Act, and the assault weapons ban. I do not believe that any of these bills infringe on anyone's second amendment rights, and I am a strong supporter of these rights. First, the evidence strongly supports the fact that during the 11 months that it has been in effect, the Brady law has helped save lives. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Brady law has resulted in approximately 2 percent of all applicants being turned down from purchasing firearms because they were ineligible. Fugitives, rapists, murderers, and convicted felons have been arrested while trying to purchase guns. In my own State of Wisconsin, which has a 2-day waiting period and a background check on handguns, more than 800 convicted felons have been prevented from buying handguns in the past 3 years. Second, as we all know, homicides involving firearms, especially among our Nation's young, are on the increase. The risk of being murdered by a firearm in the United States has more than doubled since 1966. But for young people aged 15 to 19, it is much worse. The rate has increased nearly seven times. In our America of 1995, far too many of our young people are being killed and far too many of our young people are killing each other. ever since I came to Washington. Last year, we finally made some progress. We enacted the Youth Handgun Safety Act as part of the crime bill which makes it a Federal crime to sell a handgun to a minor and for a minor to possess a handgun under most circumstances. Our measure had bipartisan support, from Senators Craig and Thurmond to former Senator Metzenbaum, from the NRA to law enforcement. It is not a total solution, but it does take a step toward stemming the violence. Finally, we have all read reports that some House Members want to repeal the ban on assault weapons as part of a new crime bill. I believe that this would be a terrible mistake. Have we forgotten about the 1989 massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Stockton, CA, and have we forgotten about the Long Island Railroad commuters who were ruthlessly gunned down just last year? The ban on assault weapons is supported by almost 80 percent of the American people and numerous police organizations. Law enforcement claims that these are the weapons of choice for gang members and drug kingpins and that repealing the ban would ensure that gangs outgun police officers who walk the beat. In any event, to repeal the ban would be to reopen a partisan political wound just at a time when we are trying to work together on behalf of the American people. For that reason alone, Senators Dole and Hatch deserve credit for not including a repeal in their crime legislation. Yes, things have certainly changed from when I was a student at Washington High School. Back then, we did not have to worry about gangs and drugs and assault weapons and broken homes. Young people were not raised in front of TV sets that bombarded them with senseless violent images. And now for many young people guns, crime, and violence are the only way that they think they can get ahead. Mr. President, this is not the kind of a world that our children deserve, but it is one in which too many do in fact live. And so I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 104th Congress to reduce the number of guns in school and the number of young people with guns. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act of 1995, a bill to help improve the security of our Nation's retired farmers. As we begin the 104th Congress, we can anticipate legislative action dealing with the tax treatment of retirement savings. President Clinton has laid out his proposals for changes in tax rules on savings, and the Republicans have made their proposed changes to the individual retirement account rules, as well; 1995 will also be the year that Congress reauthorizes the farm bill. This heightened attention to both retirement taxation issues and farm income issues affords this Congress the perfect opportunity to address an issue of great importance to rural America: farmer retirement. Farming is a highly capital-intensive business. To the extent that the average farmer reaps any profits from his or her farming operation, much of that income is directly reinvested into the farm. Rarely are there opportunities for farmers to put money aside in individual retirement accounts. Instead, farmers tend to rely on the sale of their accumulated capital assets, such as real estate, livestock, and machinery, in order to provide the income to sustain them during retirement. All too often, farmers are finding that the lump-sum payments of capital gains taxes levied on those assets leave little for retirement. It is with that problem in mind that I am introducing the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act. This legislation would provide retiring farmers the opportunity to rollover the proceeds from the sale of their farms into a tax-deferred retirement account. Instead of paying a large lump-sum capital gains tax at the point of sale, the income from the sale of a farm would be taxed only as it is withdrawn from the retirement account. Such a change in method of taxation would help prevent the financial distress that many farmers now face upon retirement. Another concern that I have about rural America is the diminishing interest of our younger rural citizens in continuing in farming. Because this legislation will facilitate the transition of our older farmers into a successful retirement, the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act will also pave the way for a more graceful transition of our younger farmers toward farm ownership. While low prices and low profits in farming will continue to take their toll on our younger farmers, I believe that this will be one tool we can use to make farming more viable for the next generation. This proposal is supported by farmers throughout the country, and I am proud to introduce this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. I will not be long. I come here this afternoon to speak in favor of the balanced budget amendment. This is not a surprise to my colleagues. I have been in support of a balanced budget amendment now for quite some time. I wish to add my voice to the voices in support of those who have up to this point indicated their support for the balanced budget amendment. I would like to give one or two arguments that I believe are very important as we consider this very important amendment to our Constitution. There is no question that we should not amend our Constitution very often and unless the reason is very, very important. We have only had 27 amendments to our Constitution over our history, so when we consider an amendment to our Constitution we clearly have to consider whether or not that amendment is of great importance. If it is not, we should not amend the Constitution. In this case, we have to ask ourselves whether or not financial responsibility, however it is defined, is a very important measurement and indicator of how our country is functioning at the Federal level and whether those who are entrusted with the responsibility of presiding over the Federal Government have a responsibility to be financially responsible. I think the answer is clearly yes. I do not think any of us, whether we favor or oppose the balanced budget amendment, would argue that we have a responsibility to exercise control and good judgment over our Nation's finances. In my opinion, one need not look very far back in our history to conclude that enough time has gone by during which time we have not exercised financial responsibility to argue very strongly of the need for the balanced budget amendment. Let us not forget that from 1789 to 1978, we had accumulated a total of less than $1 trillion of debt. In all the years, almost 200 years of history, our country had accumulated less than $1 trillion of debt. In the 16 or 17 years since then, we have gone from less than $1 trillion to almost $5 trillion. I do not think anybody in the Senate would argue that the past 16 or 17 years is an indicator of financial responsibility; that there is no need to pass a balanced budget amendment because the Congress and the administrative branch of Government have been acting in a responsible way. I do not think that argument can be made. In fact, any economist who would look at our present level of debt, which is about two-thirds to 70 percent of our gross national product, would argue that this is a very unhealthy and dangerous level of debt for our country to be in. So in terms of our history over the past 15 years, 17 years, there is no indication that we are prepared to exercise financial responsibility absent something more than what we have on the books now, which is basically nothing, by way of constraint. I do not think any of us would argue that we are not in the process now of leaving to our children an enormous debt which will cloud their lives, make their lives less happy, make them less able to take care of their needs and their generation. We are head over heels in the process of adding to the debt and providing to our children that kind of a yoke around their neck. We should not do it. We are not able to stop ourselves. And so I think that argues for the need for a balanced budget amendment. Oh, yes, there are those who say, ``Well, look at what we have done over now in the process of reducing our debt. But we all know it is a quick fix or a short fix. We all know that what we voted for is not going to bring down our deficit to a proper level, not even going to bring us within hailing distance of a balanced budget in the foreseeable future and that, indeed, after these 3 years of reducing the Federal deficit, our deficit is going to start to increase in the outyears. There is nobody suggesting we are prepared to make the hard decisions that will be required to bring what will be an increasing deficit into balance without something more than what we have on the books now, which is basically nothing, by way of restraint. So I think it is clear that we have demonstrated we need more on the books, more restraint, more legal mechanisms, and, if you will, a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Now, there are those who say, ``But this amendment is draconian. This amendment is something that will tie our hands. This amendment that we are considering right now, although it does lay on the books in the Constitution a requirement to balance the budget''--and that is a good idea in concept--``we do not like.'' That is fine. Let us come down here now and try to change that amendment. Let us come down here now and try to improve that amendment. There are those who say we have to get Social Security out of that constitutional amendment consideration. I agree. And I support that. So let us see if we can argue it through and get to an elimination of Social Security as part of this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. There are those who say we need some provision for capital outlays every year, that States that have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions have a provision for capital outlays. So, fine, let us work to get that in this constitutional amendment. There are those who say that we should not be required to balance our budget every year, that that would not be a smart economic move. Fine. Let us see if we cannot get, instead of the 60-vote requirement, which does exist in this constitutional amendment, which would allow us to unbalance the budget in any year for any reason if we can muster a 60- percent vote in either House of the Congress--to those who say that is draconian, let us try to amend that to 55 percent, 51 percent of the vote. If you do not believe in that, if you do not believe in coming down here to try to amend this amendment to the Constitution so that it more nearly conforms to what your ideas of what the balanced budget should look like, if you do not want to even argue that, then I would conclude that you do not want a balanced budget; that you do not believe in balanced budgets; that you do not believe we have a responsibility in normal years to balance our books. If you do not believe that, then you ought to come down and say, well, that is the way I would argue it and this is the way, and maybe you can convince us and the American public that you are right. I do not think it is fair to say, ``I believe in balancing our books but I do not believe in a balanced budget amendment, regardless of what it looks like.'' That to me is a specious argument, and I think it deserves to be pointed out. I think those people who believe that we should not have an amendment to balance this country's books should come down and really say why. If the fact is they do not like this amendment, I would like to see how they would tailor an amendment they could accept to the concept that we have a responsibility to balance the books of this country, if not every 1 year, every 3 years. Bring that to the floor of the Senate and let us argue that. But do not say, ``I believe in a balanced budget, but I do not believe in a balanced budget amendment.'' To me that is a very difficult argument to make. So I come down here to lend my support to those who believe we need to have an amendment to see that we exercise financial responsibility in the Congress. I look forward to this debate. I know it will be vigorous. It is very important. Undoubtedly, it will take more than just a few days, and it should take more than just a few days. I am looking forward to having that discussion with my colleagues. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I believe that for too long we in this body have taken a paternalistic attitude toward our colleagues in State and local governments, by telling them that we know best how they ought to conduct their business. We have been too willing to require State and local governments to address a problem, without giving them the financial assistance necessary to carry out that mandate. We forget that, if we pass the buck to State and local governments to fix these problems, we should also be willing to pass the bucks to pay for it, or be explicit that we are not doing so. It is for that reason that I support this bill and intend to vote for final passage. I appreciate the frustration of State and local officials as they have watched Federal funding to counties decline dramatically in the last decade, just as they have experienced a sharp rise in the demands the Federal Government has placed on them to fund Federal regulations and programs. Let's face it, the Reagan-Bush policies which shifted more responsibility to State and local governments often did not include the necessary funds to pay for these programs. I have seen one estimate that funding to local governments under the Reagan administration declined by 50 percent. When you combine this shift with the erosion of the local tax revenue base caused by the recession of the early 1990's it is no surprise that State and local leaders are throwing up their hands in despair. However, having said that, I agree with many of the comments made by my colleagues in the past week and a half regarding the complex nature of this bill, and the potential unintended consequences that might arise under this legislation. That is why I offered an amendment, which was adopted, to ensure that we have not created a disincentive for States and local governments to take action. We must not stifle innovation at the State and local level by suggesting that those who wait for Congress to act will be rewarded with Federal funds. We must work to ensure that this legislation does not penalize those States and local governments that are working to solve their own problems. This legislation was not intended to create gridlock at the State and local level. That is also why I supported a sunset amendment. We will need to step back at some point down the road and determine if this process to make Congress explicit about the cost of mandates, and make us pay for them, has tied our own hands too much. Mandates are not necessarily a dirty word and we should all remember that there are some good things that are in all our interests. The exclusions in the bill reflect some of these priorities: The constitutional rights of individuals, laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped, or disability status, emergency assistance at the request of States and local governments, and legislation necessary for our national security. There are other priorities which I wish had been included in the exemptions in this bill, such as legislation relating to class A human carcinogens, legislation which would impact the well-being of pregnant women, young children and the frail elderly, and legislation relating to child pornography, child labor laws, and child abuse. Mr. President, I regret that these amendments were not adopted and that many other important clarifying amendments were tabled, often along party lines. I support this legislation because I believe we have an obligation to be explicit about the mandates we are passing along to our States and local governments. Whether we decide to pay, for the mandate or not, we should be honest about what these mandates will cost. Because, Mr. President, we all know who really pays in the end, and that's the taxpayer.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the Kohl amendment No. 193.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to address an unintended consequence in the bill before us. I am concerned that in the process of trying to end the practice of placing onerous unfunded mandates on States and countries, we are actually discouraging States and counties from passing necessary laws. Some States may decide to delay action in the hope that Congress passes a Federal law to do the same thing and then provides the money to do it. Health care reform is a good example. How many States put off health car reforms last year anticipating action here in Washington? We do not want States saying, ``Why should we take action today, when the Federal in the process?'' If we do not address this problem, we may actually be creating a new kind of gridlock at the State and local level, with State and local officials trying to second guess where Congress is going on a whole variety of issues, so as not to miss out on their share of Federal funds. Although I am confident that State and local leaders will take the necessary steps to address crime, health, poverty, environmental, or other problems within their own borders, I do not want them to fear that they are doing their constituents a disservice by missing out on Federal dollars to address these same problems. We must ensure that their proactive efforts are not necessarily held against them in the future when the Federal Government catches up. What of States that decide to begin the implementation of Federal mandates before they are passed into law, sensibly trying to spread the costs out over several years because they are unsure as to whether Congress will decide to waive the funding requirement under this bill? Do we want to penalize them for trying to ease the burden on the taxpayers? No, and this amendment sends them an important signal to proceed. Furthermore, this legislation should not discourage innovation at the State and local level. Many interesting ideas and creative solutions to public problems emerge from the State and local level. We must be careful not to put a damper on these true laboratories for public policy innovation. An example is the issue of welfare reform. There have been proposals offered here in Congress suggesting that States should be required to track the paternity of children on the welfare rolls so that the fathers can be forced to pay child support. If States are contemplating similar actions, they ought to be encouraged, rather than discouraged, from taking these actions prior to Federal action. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask that it be considered as offered for the purposes of the deadline tomorrow.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As the Senator from Idaho and I both know, we have been working together and will continue, I am sure, to work together along with Senator Glenn and Senator Roth, Senator Exon, to find language that clarifies the purpose and that satisfies all of our needs. I simply want to bring that to the floor. I appreciate your consideration and willingness to work with me on this.

Mr. KOHL. Briefly, Mr. President, this amendment clarifies a possible problem in the bill that we are creating or will be creating a disincentive for States to take action. Some States may well decide to delay action on necessary and important measures in the hope that Congress passes a Federal law to do the same thing that they are considering doing and then provide some money to do it which otherwise would not be available. This amendment will ensure that States are not ineligible to receive funds if they are already meeting a Federal mandate under existing State law. We are going to be discussing this tomorrow. I am not asking that the amendment be accepted at this time, of course, but I wanted to present it. I think it is important that we not provide clear disincentives to States to do things environmental or with regard to health care or welfare reform or in any way. Should we be giving the States a message that we want them to just sit around and not do anything if they anticipate that down the road a Federal mandate may be passed that would provided the money for them to do it? It seems to me that is not what we are trying to accomplish here with this bill. My amendment simply indicates that States will not be ineligible to be considered for funding if, in fact, they are acting in a way that is progressive and that, if a mandate then is passed, they will be eligible to be considered for any money that they may have spent in complying with that mandate. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the purposes of offering my amendment.

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come here today to express my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers]. I would like to begin by noting the irony of our current situation; namely, that as we attempt to relieve the burdens imposed on State and local governments, we very well may, unless we reject this amendment, end up using the same legislation to impose new mandates on job- creating businesses across our country. Mr. President, the proposed amendment would allow States to require companies that mail goods to their States to collect taxes on those goods. Under my colleague's proposal, mail order businesses would be saddled with the immense burden of complying with multiple sets of procedures and regulations, different tax rates, and various filing requirements. And in those instances where a State allows a company to collect local taxes according to a blended average local tax rate, consumers, in many cases, could end up paying more tax than they actually owe. Mail order companies are part of a growing industry. They serve people who like the convenience of phone shopping or who are unable to leave their homes to shop. They also offer rural and small town consumers an unsurpassed variety of goods, many of which are simply unavailable in smaller markets. This industry also affords Middleton, WI, the chance to grow into successful big businesses. And growing mail order business like Swiss Colony and Lands' End, also located in Wisconsin, account for 5 percent of U.S. employment or approximately 5 million jobs. The last time that this measure was considered by Congress, over 500,000 mail order consumers wrote in to voice their strong objections to this measure. They did so because they are tired of the ever increasing mountain of federally mandated paperwork and taxes. I believe that we need to heed their message and move in the direction of eliminating, rather than increasing these burdens. Moreover, Mr. President, I note that my colleague's proposal has not been reviewed by the Finance Committee. At a minimum--and certainly without presuming to speak for either Chairman Packwood or Senator Moynihan--I would urge my good friend to work with the Finance Committee to achieve a considered resolution to this matter. In closing Mr. President, it is said that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. This amendment represents both: taxes for consumers and certain death--crushed under a load of tax rules, regulations, and requirements--for many mail order companies. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, one of the basic tenets upon which this Nation was founded was that there should be no taxation without representation. But the dairy farmers of this Nation know all too well that taxation without representation continues today. They live with that reality in their businesses every day. Dairy farmers are required to pay a 15-cent tax, in the form of an assessment, on every 100 pounds of milk that they sell. This tax goes to fund dairy promotion activities, such as those conducted by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, commonly known as the National Dairy Board. Yet these same farmers that pay hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of dollars every year for these mandatory promotion activities have no direct say over who represents them on that Board. In the summer of 1993, a national referendum was held giving dairy producers the opportunity to vote on whether or not the National Dairy Board should continue. The referendum was held after 16,000 dairy producers, more than 10 percent of dairy farmers nationwide, signed a petition to the Secretary of Agriculture calling for the referendum. Farmers signed this petition for a number of reasons. Some felt they could no longer afford the promotion assessment that is taken out of their milk checks every month. Others were frustrated with what they perceived to be a lack of clear benefits from the promotion activities. And still others were alarmed by certain promotion activities undertaken by the Board with which they did not agree. But overriding all of these concerns was the fact that dairy farmers have no direct power over the promotion activities which they fund from their own pockets. When the outcome of the referendum on continuing the National Dairy Board was announced, it had passed overwhelmingly. But because nearly 90 percent of all votes cast in favor of continuing the Board were cast by bloc-voting cooperatives, there has been skepticism among dairy farmers about the validity of the vote. While I believe that dairy promotion activities are important for enhancing markets for dairy products, it matters more what dairy farmers believe. After all, they are the ones who pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for these promotion activities. And they are the ones who have no direct say over who represents them on that Board. It is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the National Dairy Promotion Reform Act of 1995. Some in the dairy industry have argued that this issue is dead, and that to reintroduce such legislation will only reopen old wounds. But I must respectfully disagree. The intent of this legislation is not to rehash the referendum debate, which was a contentious one. Instead, the intent is to look forward. Farmers in my State have traditionally been strong supporters of the cooperative movement, because the cooperative business structure has given them the opportunity to be equal partners in the businesses that market their products and supply their farms. I have been a strong supporter of the cooperative movement for the same reason. But there is a growing dissention among farmers that I believe is dangerous to the long-term viability of agricultural cooperatives. As I talk to farmers around Wisconsin, I am hearing a growing concern that their voices are not being heard by their cooperatives. They frequently cite the 1993 National Dairy Board referendum as an example. The bill that I am introducing today seeks to address that concern, by giving dairy farmers a more direct role in the selection of their representatives on the National Dairy Board. Whereas current law requires that members of the National Dairy Board be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, this legislation would require that the Board be an elected body. Further, although the legislation would continue the right of farmer cooperatives to nominate individual members to be on the ballot, bloc voting by cooperatives would be prohibited for the purposes of the election itself. There are many issues for which the cooperatives can and should represent their members. But on this issue, farmers ought to speak for themselves. It is my hope that this legislation will help restore the confidence of the U.S. dairy farmer in dairy promotion. To achieve that confidence, farmers need to know that they have direct power over their representatives on the Board. This bill gives them that power. I welcome my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, as an original cosponsor of this bill, and I am also pleased to join today as an original cosponsor of his legislation, the Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act of 1995. Senator Feingold's legislation would make other needed improvements in the National Dairy Promotion Program. Specifically, the bill would require that imported dairy products be subject to the same dairy promotion assessment as are paid on domestic dairy products today. Further, Senator Feingold's bill would provide this Nation's dairy farmers a chance to renew their support for the Dairy Promotion Program on regular basis, by requiring a referendum of farmers every 5 years, without bloc voting. I thank my colleague Senator Feingold for his efforts on these matters, and I believe that our two bills provide Dairy Promotion Program reforms that are both complementary and necessary. national dairy promotion reform act of 1995--summary of the bill The bill would amend the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 to require that future members of the National Dairy Board be elected directly by dairy producers, and not appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture as they are currently. The bill would also prohibit the practice of bloc voting of members by producer cooperatives for the purposes of the Board elections. However, cooperatives could continue to nominate members to be on the ballot, as long as they adequately consult with their membership in the nomination process. The explicit details of the election process would be developed by the Secretary of Agriculture. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we in the Senate spend a great deal of time arguing about the appropriate role of the Federal Government. Certainly this past election has shown us that the American people are changing their opinions about the role that the Federal Government ought to play in our lives. That debate will continue long into the future. But one thing that we can probably all agree on is that one appropriate role of the Federal Government is to rectify its past mistakes, whenever possible. I know that my colleagues of all ideological stripes can list specific instances in which Federal intervention has caused undue pain and suffering to individuals or communities. Today I join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold in introducing a bill to address one of those mistakes that occurred some 30 years ago in the Kickapoo River Valley of Wisconsin. And I'm proud to say that the ``fix'' to this problem also saves the taxpayers millions of dollars. In the mid 1960s, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to build a flood control dam on the Kickapoo River at LaFarge in Vernon County, WI. In order to proceed with the project, the Corp of Engineers condemned 140 farms covering an area of about 8,500 acres. To LaFarge, a community of only 840 people, the loss of these farms dealt a significant blow to the local economy. With the loss of economic activity, the community eagerly awaited the completion of the dam, and the creation of a lake that promised to provide some economic benefits in the form of recreational and tourism activities. But because of budgetary and environmental concerns, the project never happened. And the people of LaFarge were left holding the bag. But I am proud to say that the reintroduction of this bill today represents a milestone in the cooperative effort of the citizens of the Kickapoo River Valley, the state of Wisconsin, and local environmental leaders to turn this bad situation into an outstanding success for the community, the State, and the Federal taxpayers. The LaFarge Dam legislation would modify the original LaFarge Dam authorization, returning the federally condemned property to the state of Wisconsin. Anticipating this action, the State Legislature and Governor Thompson acted last year to authorize the use of this 8,500 property as a state recreational and environmental management area. The highway repairs envisioned by the original dam authorization would remain. Because the original authorization required an area to be flooded, the highway was targeted for relocation. The project has been in limbo all these years, the relocation never took place, nor have any improvements or needed maintenance been done on the highway. Now, over 30 years later, the road has fallen into extreme disrepair, and this bill would authorize the necessary road improvements. The bill also reauthorizes the construction of a recreational facility to help interpret the surrounding environment for the visitors. While the original dam and flood control project, in today's dollars, would have cost the Federal Government $102 million, the modified project as authorized by the bill introduced today would only cost $17 million. Late last year, both the House and Senate attempted to pass a Water Resources bill. A provision addressing the LaFarge dam project was included in the bill passed by the House, as well as the bill proposed for consideration in the Senate. Unfortunately, time grew short, and the bill was bogged down in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. President, it is my hope that the House and Senate will be able to work together early in the 104th Congress to pass a Water Resources bill, and that this legislation will be included in that bill.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a welfare reform proposal that I introduced in the 103d Congress. My legislation is based on one fundamental conviction: that the current welfare system is so bad--so removed from the American values of work, family, and responsibility--that it must be completely abolished. My bill will take the Federal Government out of the business of welfare and put the States into the business of empowering their residents to find and keep jobs. Before I describe our bill, let me talk a moment about the current system. It discourages work, discourages marriage, and discourages responsible choices about parenthood. We have set up a cash grant program that tells young women--don't work, don't marry, have children, and you will get support. Work, marry, plan your family for when you can afford to support it, and we will leave you out in the cold--in fact, we will take your tax money to support those who have decided not to work. The current welfare system pays people to reject the values of work and family that have made this country strong, and the time has come to reject that approach. Right now, State and local governments that want to reject this system and implement something that helps those down on their luck get jobs don't have the freedom to do so--they have to beg Washington for waivers from myriad Federal rules, and often as not, they get turned down or have to wait years and years for an answer. Meanwhile, another generation grows up in our broken welfare system. I think there is a better way. A simple, common sense approach, that is consistent with American values. This legislation truly ends welfare as we know it by abolishing AFDC and most of food stamps. The money now used for welfare payments and Federal administrative costs is turned over to the States in the form of a block grant. They will use the grant to establish welfare-to-work systems designed to meet the needs of their local communities. My legislation ensures that the elderly and disabled continue to get food stamp assistance and that needy children get food through an expansion of WIC. Beyond that, States are allowed to use the money we now spend on welfare to connect people to work in any way they determine will be successful--through job placement assistance, job training, children care, transportation assistance, earnings supplements, public service jobs, etc. To have its block grant renewed each year, all a State would have to do is show that it is moving people into work. If it meets this test, then it is doing better than we have ever done at the Federal level, and its block grant will be continued. My welfare-to-work legislation will spend not one penny more on welfare than we currently spend. There are many who would argue that we have to add more money to the current system to get it to work. But, as most people operating in the private sector know, it doesn't matter how much you spend to dress up a product nobody wants, in the end, all you have is an expensive product nobody wants. It is time to stop pouring money into a welfare system that doesn't help anyone, because in the end all we will get is an expensive welfare system that still doesn't help anyone. We can use the money currently spent on welfare--including $3 billion in administrative expenses--to let the States design systems that work for them and their citizens. By turning over to the States most of the money we currently spend on Federal administrative costs, and getting States to re-orient their systems away from check-writing and toward helping people find jobs, we can make big strides in getting people to work. Another reason I have proposed keeping the block grant at current welfare spending levels is the fact that placing people in jobs will generate savings for State welfare-to-work programs, since such individuals won't need as much savings to be used to help harder-to-place people get the job training/ child care/and other assistance they need to get and keep jobs. Another part of the answer lies in encouraging States to better utilize other Federal resources they already get. Right now, we give States over $7 billion to help people attain, and maintain self-sufficiency through child care, social services, and job training grants. These grants could be better targeted, and if connected to State welfare-to-work systems, could provide additional support to help welfare-to-work programs be even more successful. Economic circumstances and people in Kenosha, WI, are different from those in Ottumwa, IA. Portland, ME, is not San Diego, CA. A one-size- fits-all welfare plan designed in Washington cannot work for all these communities. By introducing this bill, we are saying that it is time to face the fact that the answer to something as hard as helping people get work is not going to be developed in Washington--the many answers we need are going to come from communities throughout this country. State and local governments have been pleading for flexibility to design programs that work--it is time to get out of their way! Some may think that I'm bashing the Federal Government when I say that I don't think it can solve this problem. I'm not. I'm simply saying that there are some things Washington is good at, such as the relatively straight-forward tasks of collecting payments for Social Security and sending out the checks our elderly so depend on. And there are some things our Federal Government is not good at, such as trying to help individuals get back on their feet. This is because so much of the answer to getting welfare beneficiaries into jobs depends on an individual's circumstances and the local situation--both of which are impossible to take completely into account when developing a comprehensive, national solution. The crucial difference between my bill and others you may hear about is this: instead of adding yet another layer to the overly complex welfare system we have today, we admit that it needs to be abolished and completely replaced, and propose to do so with a simple program, run by States, that moves people to work. Many of us are concerned that welfare reform plans need to show compassion for children. I think this proposal meets that test: it ensures needy children will get nutrition assistance through WIC and that their parents will receive assistance getting connected to a job. Frankly, I think the most compassionate thing we can do for these children is to help their parents get a job, which is more than the current system can say. My bill says that government has the responsibility to provide a helping hand to assist individuals, but also that individuals have the responsibility to use the assistance to help themselves. As a final note, let me point out that this plan would remove the requirement that families break up before they can get assistance. With this block grant, States can help families who need help before they break up. This is one more reason why we think this bill is more consistent with American values--the values of compassion, work, family, and responsibility--than our current welfare system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.