[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2376. A bill to provide for the appointment of one additional 
Federal district judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            wisconsin eastern district judgeship act of 1994

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would create an additional Federal judgeship for the Eastern District 
of Wisconsin to be located in Green Bay. Let me tell you why an extra 
judge is crucially needed.
  Suppose that you are a litigant from Oconto and you need to use the 
Federal courts to seek compensation for an injury. Or suppose that you 
are a retailer in Appleton and you want to charge an out-of-State 
manufacturer with price fixing. Or suppose that you are the key witness 
in a Federal drug prosecution that is centered around activities in the 
northeastern part of the State. In each instance, you will have to go 
to Milwaukee, where all four full-time Federal district judges hold 
court. And in each instance, the additional travel time--up to 6 hours 
in each direction--and cost may make justice less available, less 
affordable and, ultimately, less likely to the people who need it most.
  Indeed, prosecuting cases on the Menominee Indian Reservation causes 
specific problems that alone may 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. 
However, 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 and 
investigators--and sometimes witnesses--for travel expenses, the 
existing system also costs the taxpayers money as well.
  Mr. President, law enforcement officials tell me that some criminal 
cases are never brought in Federal court because of the expense and 
inconvenience. Sadly, this should not be too surprising: as one group 
of Wisconsin law enforcement officers analogized:

       Imagine the district attorney of Milwaukee being located in 
     Keshena, or Green Bay, or Marinette and trying to coordinate 
     witness interviews, case preparation, and testimony.

  Placing a Federal judge in Green Bay will not resolve all of these 
problems overnight, of course. But it will begin to reduce some of 
these needless obstacles to the fair and efficient administration of 
Justice.
  And don't take my word for it, ask the sheriffs and district 
attorneys in northeastern Wisconsin: each and every one of them has 
urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. Mr. 
President, 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 today.
  Mr. President, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin is clearly justified on the basis of caseload. In 
1993, the Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm 
of the Federal judiciary, recommended the creation of additional 
Federal judgeships in 14 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 modified 
by the average level of case complexity. New positions were justified 
where the court's workload exceeded 400 weighted filings per judge. In 
5 of the 14 districts where additional judgeships were recommended, 
however, the number of weighted filings per judge was actually fewer 
than in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Indeed, from 1991 through 
1993 the eastern district consistently averaged 440 weighted filing per 
judge, which is substantially in excess of the 400 weighted filings 
``cutoff.''
  Mr. President, this legislation is simple, effective and 
straightforward. It would create an additional judgeship for the 
eastern district, require that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and 
give the chief judge the flexibility to designate which judge holds 
court there. And it would increase the number of Federal district 
judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that time, 
while more than 140 new Federal district judgeships have been added 
nationwide, not a single one has been created for Wisconsin.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay 
will reduce inconvenience and increase judicial efficiency. But most 
importantly, it will help ensure that justice is more available and 
more affordable to the people of Wisconsin. For these sensible reasons, 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2376

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN 
                   DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district 
     judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
       (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained section 133 
     of title 28, United States Code, shall reflect the change in 
     the total number of permanent district judgeships authorized 
     under subsection (a), such table is amended by amending the 
     item relating to Wisconsin to read as follows:

``Wisconsin:
  ``Eastern...........................................................5
  ``Western........................................................2''.

       (c) Holding of Court.--The chief judge of the eastern 
     district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who shall hold 
     court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
                                  ____

                                                   August 8, 1994.
     Senator Herb Kohl,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: We are writing to urge your support for 
     the creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. The 
     Eastern District of Wisconsin includes the 28 eastern-most 
     counties from Forest and Florence Counties in the north to 
     Kenosha and Walworth Counties in the south.
       Green Bay is central to the northern part of the district 
     which includes approximately one third of the district's 
     population. Currently, all Federal District Judges hold court 
     in Milwaukee.
       A federal court in Green Bay would make federal proceedings 
     much more accessible to the people of northern Wisconsin and 
     would alleviate many problems for citizens and law 
     enforcement. Travel time of 3 or 4 hours each way makes it 
     difficult and expensive for witnesses and officers to go to 
     court in Milwaukee. Citizen witnesses are often reluctant to 
     travel back and forth to Milwaukee. It often takes a whole 
     day of travel to come to court and testify for a few minutes. 
     Any lengthy testimony requires an inconvenient and costly 
     overnight stay in Milwaukee. Sending officers is costly and 
     takes substantial amounts of travel time, thereby reducing 
     the number of officers available on the street. Many cases 
     are simply never referred to federal court because of this 
     cost and inconvenience.
       In some cases there is no alternative. For example, the 
     Federal government has the obligation to prosecute all felony 
     offenses committed by Indians on the Menominee Reservation. 
     Yet the Reservation's distance from the Federal Courts and 
     prosecutors in Milwaukee poses serious problems. Imagine the 
     District Attorney of Milwaukee being located in Keshena or 
     Green Bay or Marinette and trying to coordinate witness 
     interviews, case preparation, and testimony.
       As local law enforcement officials, we try to work closely 
     with other local, state and federal agencies, and we believe 
     establishing a Federal District Court in Green Bay will 
     measurably enhance these efforts. Most important, a Federal 
     Court in Green Bay will make these courts substantially more 
     accessible to the citizens who live here.
       We urge you to introduce and support legislation to create 
     and fund an additional Federal District Court in Green Bay.
       Gary Robert Bruno, Shawano and Menominee County District 
     Attorney.
       Jay Conley, Oconto County District Attorney.
       John DesJardins, Outagamie County District Attorney.
       Douglas Drexler, Florence County District Attorney.
       Guy Dutcher, Waushara County District Attorney.
       E. James FitzGerald, Manitowoc County District Attorney.
       Kenneth Kratz, Calumet County District Attorney.
       Jackson Main, Jr., Kewaunee County District Attorney.
       David Miron, Marinette County District Attorney.
       Joseph Paulus, Winnebago County District Attorney.
       Gary Schuster, Door County District Attorney.
       John Snider, Waupaca County District Attorney.
       Ralph Uttke, Langlade County District Attorney.
       Demetrio Verich, Forest County District Attorney.
       John Zakowski, Brown County District Attorney.
       William Aschenbrener, Shawano County Sheriff.
       Charles Brann, Door County Sheriff.
       Todd Chaney, Kewaunee County Sheriff.
       Michael Donart, Brown County Sheriff.
       Patrick Fox, Waushara County Sheriff.
       Bradley Gehring, Outagamie County Sheriff.
       Daniel Gillis, Calumet County Sheriff.
       James Kanikula, Marinette County Sheriff.
       Norman Knoll, Forest County Sheriff.
       Thomas Kocourek, Manitowoc County Sheriff.
       Robert Kraus, Winnebago County Sheriff.
       William Mork, Waupaca County Sheriff.
       Jeffrey Rickaby, Florence County Sheriff.
       David Stegar, Langlade County Sheriff.
       Kenneth Woodworth, Oconto County Sheriff.
       Richard Awonhopay, Chief, Menominee Tribal Police.
       Richard Brey, Chief of Police, Manitowoc.
       Patrick Campbell, Chief of Police, Kaukauna.
       James Danforth, Chief of Police, Oneida Public Safety.
       Donald Forcey, Chief of Police, Neenah.
       David Gorski, Chief of Police, Appleton.
       Robert Langan, Chief of Police, Green Bay.
       Michael Lien, Chief of Police, Two Rivers.
       Nike Nordin, Chief of Police, Sturgeon Bay.
       Patrick Ravet, Chief of Police, Marinette.
       Robert Stanke, Chief of Police, Menasha.
       Don Thaves, Chief of Police, Shawano.
       James Thome, Chief of Police, Oshkosh.
                                  ____

         Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of 
           Wisconsin,
                                    Milwaukee, WI, August 9, 1994.
     To: The District Attorney's, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs 
         Urging the Creation of a Federal District Court in Green 
         Bay.
     From: Thomas P. Schneider, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of 
         Wisconsin.
       Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, urging the 
     creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. You point 
     out a number of facts in your letter:
       (1) Although 1/3 of the population of the Eastern District 
     of Wisconsin is in the northern part of the district, all of 
     the Federal District Courts are located in Milwaukee.
       (2) A federal court in Green Bay would be more accessible 
     to the people of northern Wisconsin. It would substantially 
     reduce witness travel time and expenses, and it would make 
     federal court more accessible and less costly for local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (3) The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over 
     most felonies committed on the Menominee Reservation, located 
     approximately 3 hours from Milwaukee. The distance to 
     Milwaukee is a particular problem for victims, witnesses, and 
     officers from the Reservation.
       I have discussed this proposal with the chiefs of the 
     federal law enforcement agencies in the Eastern District of 
     Wisconsin, including Federal Bureau of Investigations, 
     Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service, U.S. Marshall, U.S. 
     Customs Service, and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal 
     Investigation Division. All express support for such a court 
     and give additional reasons why it is needed.
       Over the past several years, the FBI, DEA, and IRS have 
     initiated a substantial number of investigations in the 
     northern half of the district. In preparation for indictments 
     and trials, and when needed to testify before the Grand Jury 
     or in court, officers regularly travel to Milwaukee. Each 
     trip requires 4 to 6 hours of round trip travel per day, plus 
     the actual time in court. In other words, the agencies' 
     already scarce resources are severely taxed. Several federal 
     agencies report that many cases which are appropriate for 
     prosecution are simply not charged federally because local 
     law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to bring 
     these cases and officers back and forth to Milwaukee.
       Nevertheless, there have been a substantial number of 
     successful federal investigations and prosecutions from the 
     Fox Valley area and other parts of the Northern District of 
     Wisconsin including major drug organizations, bank frauds, 
     tax cases, and weapons cases.
       It is interesting to note that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 
     the Eastern District of Wisconsin holds hearings in Green 
     Bay, Manitowoc, and Oshkosh, all in the northern half of the 
     district. For the past four years approximately 29% of all 
     bankruptcy filings in the district were in these three 
     locations.
       In addition, we continue to prosecute most felonies 
     committed on the Menominee Reservation. Yet, the 
     Reservation's distance from the federal courts in Milwaukee 
     poses serious problems. A federal court in Green Bay is 
     critically important if the federal government is to live up 
     to its moral and legal obligation to enforce the law on the 
     Reservation.
       In summary, I appreciate and understand your concerns and I 
     join you in urging the creation of a Federal District Court 
     in Green Bay.
                                              Thomas P. Schneider,
                     U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
        Simpson, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2377. A bill to establish a national advisory referendum on 
limiting the terms of Members of Congress at the general election of 
1994; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                 CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS LEGISLATION

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
conduct a national referendum on the question of term limits for 
Members of Congress. It is a companion bill to H.R. 3835, sponsored in 
the House by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan.
  I have nothing against the senior Members of this Senate. Indeed, I 
respect them as some of the wisest legislators our Nation has. But the 
seniority system makes government a game of waiting--waiting for the 
right committee, waiting for the right chair, waiting sometimes for 
decades. And we expect our constituents to wait with us. I recently 
read an article which complained that a certain State might lose more 
than a century of seniority in the other Chamber next year. Seniority 
is displacing ideas as a commodity for citizens to value and to 
preserve.
  We have created a system where it is better for our constituents to 
keep electing us, no matter how we vote, so that we can rack up 
seniority for our States. With all due respect, that is not what this 
Chamber, or the other one, is about. We pride ourselves, rightly, as 
the world's greatest deliberative body. And I think my fellow freshmen 
agree with me that our voices are heard and respected on this floor. 
But the seniority system tends to create career politicians, whereas 
our Founding Fathers wanted citizen-legislators. It was envisioned that 
people who had trades, professions, or businesses would serve for a 
period of time, bringing their business experience to shape the laws 
that would govern commerce and quality of life.
  How can the citizens of one State or one district change their 
representation without losing out on this game? They can do it only if 
they can impose a limit on the tenure of all other Members of the 
Congress.
  Madam President, I think the solution is to limit our terms. But do 
not take my word for it. We should ask the people what they think. This 
bill would add a nonbinding referendum to the election ballots in 
November, asking voters whether we should amend the Constitution to 
limit the time we can serve, just as it limits the term of the 
President of the United States. Amending the Constitution is a serious 
process, one that we debated last winter on the question of a balanced 
budget. Before we take that step on term limits, we should invoke the 
communicative power of democracy and ask the people what they think.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Gramm, and 
        Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2378. A bill to prohibit U.S. assistance to countries that 
prohibit or restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian 
assistance; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                     humanitarian aid corridor act

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, and Senator 
D'Amato, Senator Gramm, and Senator Kennedy. Our legislation will 
further an important American principle: Humanitarian aid should not be 
restricted for political reasons. The legislation we are introducing 
today provides that no U.S. foreign aid shall be provided to countries 
which prohibit or restrict U.S. foreign aid to other countries.
  It seems this is a principle that could be accepted by everyone--how 
could we give money to a country which prevents our aid from reaching 
other needy people? The legislation names no names, it simply affirms a 
basic principle: A government does not deserve our aid if it obstructs 
efforts to aid others.
  While our legislation is drafted as a generic principle, there is one 
country that would clearly be affected. Turkey receives large amounts 
of United States assistance while it continues to enforce the embargo 
on Armenia. For the past, present, and next fiscal year, 1993-95, 
Turkey will receive roughly $1.75 billion in grants and concessional 
loans financed by the United States taxpayer. At the same time, Turkey 
prevents even care packages from the American Red Cross from entering 
Armenia.
  Mr. President, the suffering of the democratic nation of Armenia 
under the immoral and illegal embargo are well-known: Food and energy 
supplies range from scarce to nonexistent. Outside relief supplies must 
travel circuitous and dangerous routes due to Turkey's blockage, Many 
never make it at all. Due to Turkey's official government policy of 
blockading Armenia, Armenians freeze, Armenians suffer, and Armenians 
go hungry. United States aid to Armenia is far more expensive and far 
less effective because of Turkey's blockade. In such circumstances, it 
is wrong to provide Turkey with one and three-quarters billion of 
American tax dollars.

  Earlier today, I met with President Ter-Petrossian--Armenia's first 
democratically-elected head of State. President Ter-Petrossian knows 
the price of freedom, having been imprisoned under the Soviet Union for 
advocating Armenian nationalism. The President spoke about the terrible 
consequences of the Armenian embarbo. He spoke about how there has been 
no positive sign from Turkey, no movement toward opening routes into 
land-locked Armenia. President Ter-Petrossian thanked us for our 
efforts to help the long-suffering Armenian people.
  The legislation Senator Simon and I are introducing today would help 
change the Turkish policy of strangling Armenia. It would provide the 
administration with an effective tool to use with the Turkish 
Government. And it would provide a powerful incentive for Turkey to end 
its contribution to the suffering of the Armenian people.
  I have nothing against the Turkish people. I met Prime Minister 
Ciller when she was in Washington last fall, and had a useful 
discussion. And I recognize that Turkey has been a valuable ally of the 
United States in NATO, and in Operation Desert Storm. The legislation 
we are introducing recognizes that there may be a compelling national 
interest which could override the principle of non-interference with 
humanitarian aid. For this reason, we have included Presidential waiver 
authority in section 3(b) of the bill.

  The legislation could apply to many other relief situations. There 
are occasional reports of aid obstruction by Kenya, Russia, and other 
countries. This legislation would make one principle very clear: If a 
government plays political games with aid destined to help people in 
need, they will no longer get U.S. foreign assistance. This legislation 
will help deter interference with humanitarian relief, and it will 
provide for appropriate response in the case of interference.
  Mr. President, this legislation will be referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations. I hope it will get rapid consideration. Similar 
legislation has been introduced in the House. I hope the Congress will 
enact this legislation and send it to the White House before the end of 
this Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2378

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States' Federal budget deficit and spending 
     constraints require the maximum efficiency in the usage of 
     United States foreign assistance.
       (2) The delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in 
     need is consistent with the fundamental values of our Nation 
     and is an important component of United States foreign 
     policy.
       (3) As a matter of principle and in furtherance of fiscal 
     prudence, the United States should seek to promote the 
     delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in need in a 
     manner that is both timely and cost effective.
       (4) Recipients of United States assistance should not 
     hinder or delay the transport or delivery of United States 
     humanitarian assistance to other countries.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES THAT RESTRICT 
                   THE TRANSPORT OR DELIVERY OF UNITED STATES 
                   HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Prohibition on Assistance.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for United States assistance may not be made 
     available for any country whose government prohibits or 
     otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or 
     delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.
       (b) Waiver.--The prohibition on United States assistance 
     contained in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President 
     determines and notifies Congress in writing that providing 
     such assistance to a country is in the national security 
     interest of the United States.
       (c) Resumption of Assistance.--A suspension or termination 
     of United States assistance for any country under subsection 
     (a) shall cease to be effective when the President certifies 
     in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that such 
     country is no longer prohibiting or otherwise restricting, 
     either directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of 
     United States humanitarian assistance.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--At the time of the annual budget 
     submission to Congress, the President shall submit a report 
     to Congress describing any information available to the 
     President concerning prohibitions or restrictions, direct or 
     indirect, on the transport or delivery of United States 
     humanitarian assistance by the government of any country 
     receiving or eligible to receive United States foreign 
     assistance during the current or preceding fiscal year.
       (b) Applicability of Law.--The President shall include in 
     the report required by subsection (a) a statement as to 
     whether the prohibition in section 3(a) applies to each 
     country for which the President has information available to 
     him concerning prohibitions or restrictions, direct or 
     indirect, on the transport or delivery of United States 
     humanitarian assistance.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``United States assistance'' 
     has the same meaning given that term in section 481(e)(4) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

                          ____________________