Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. It might be of interest to the chairman, and other Senators, to share some information I have received from the USDA Office of the Chief Economist on the question of how energy costs affect various types of farming operations. I asked the Chief Economist if he could provide the amounts that farmers pay for direct fuels costs, electricity, and indirect energy costs such as those associated with the production of fertilizer and chemicals. According to that office, using the most recent year for which these amounts are available, 2004, producers of so-called program crops, including wheat, corn, feed grains, rice, cotton oilseeds, and peanuts, paid a total of $9.9 billion for these sort of energy inputs. Of that total, corn had the highest energy costs with $4.9 billion. Cotton producers came in second at $1.7 billion. On the other hand, peanut producers paid $145 million for these same costs. The average energy cost for these seven different commodities, by commodity, was $707 million. However, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the energy costs of dairy producers, as described by the USDA Office of the Chief Economist, was $2.2 billion. While dairy production was not the highest single commodity for energy costs, it did come in second and was three times greater than the average. While these costs were high in 2004, we all know what has happened, and is continuing to happen, to energy costs since then. I know the budget constraints that we face with regard to the pending supplemental appropriations bill, and I am aware of the statement of President Bush in regard to his views on spending. However, I would like to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his views on this subject. I hope he would be willing to work with me in conference to ensure that in the event funds are provided for supplemental economic assistance in a manner similar to what is provided in the pending bill, that dairy producers will be able to participate in a program to help compensate for the high energy and other costs facing the agriculture sector.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the chairman. Army Modularity Programs

Mr. KOHL. The supplemental appropriations bill now pending before the Senate includes nearly $4 billion in emergency agriculture assistance. This assistance is necessary for farmers and ranchers to recover from natural disasters that have occurred over the past year. This assistance is not only related to the horrible storms that ravaged the Gulf of Mexico coast last summer, but it also will be available for producers across the country who have similarly suffered from floods, storms, wildfires, drought, and other severe weather events. Also included in this assistance package is a provision to provide supplemental economic loss payments to producers of certain crops. The primary purpose of this assistance is to help compensate for the impact of high energy costs on agricultural producers. We must remember that while many businesses can pass on increased costs of production to consumers or other purchasers, the nature of the agriculture economy is such that farmers and ranchers are very limited in their ability to pass on such costs. Yet the costs of fuel, electricity, and other energy inputs are a very large part of the overall costs of agricultural production and when energy costs rise, as they have done in recent months, they put farming and ranching operations all across the country at risk. Unfortunately, the provision now in the bill does not apply to dairy producers. During consideration of this supplemental appropriations bill by the Full Appropriations Committee, I pointed out to my colleagues that dairy producers are suffering from high energy costs as are producers of crops. I ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, if he recalls the discussion we had on that topic at that time.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to introduce the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006. This legislation will make several important and overdue reforms to our antitrust laws to give our Federal Government more of the tools it needs to take action to combat anti-competitive conduct in the oil and gas industry. It will also direct that our antitrust enforcement agencies undertake several actions to ensure that they are enforcing our current antitrust laws properly. We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices are once again on the rise, with the national average price increasing more than thirty cents in the last month alone. Many industry experts fear, if current trends continue, that last summer's record levels of more than three dollars per gallon will be exceeded this coming summer. And prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. These price increases are a silent tax that steals hard earned money away from American consumers every time they visit the gas pump and every time they raise their thermostat to keep their family warm. There is much debate about the causes of these gas prices. The role of increasing worldwide demand and supply limitations obviously play a role. But our investigation in the Judiciary Committee--including two hearings in the last several months--have made plain the facts that make many of us suspect that oil and gas markets are not behaving in a truly competitive fashion. The GAO has found that there were over 2600 mergers and acquisitions in the oil industry since 1990, and that these mergers have caused the price of gasoline to increase from one to seven cents per gallon. Despite a substantial growth in demand, no new refineries have been opened in the United States in 25 years. Instead, more than half have been closed, so that overall national refining capacity declined by more than 9 percent from 1981 to 2004 while demand for gasoline rose 37 percent. Many argue that limiting refining capacity is actually in the oil companies' interest, as it enables them to gain market power over supply to raise price. And the oil industry has unquestionably enriched itself during this period of high prices. Oil industry profits reached record high levels last year, led by Exxon Mobil's record high profits of over $36 billion. An independent study by the consumers group Public Citizen found that U.S. oil refiners increased their profits on each gallon of gasoline they refined by 79 percent in the five-year period ending in 2004. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and other refined products--and compound their profits along the way-- demonstrates to many of us that that there is a failure of competition in our oil and gas markets. Indeed, at our hearing last month, the chief executives of our Nation's largest oil companies admitted they had no difficulty in passing along crude oil price increases to consumers. Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil forthrightly testified that ``[t]he high price of crude oil has been passed ultimately along to the consumer of whatever the finished product may be . . . .'' David O'Reilly of Chevron agreed. It also seems clear that there has been a failure of our antitrust enforcement agencies to take action to restore competition to this vital industry. Vigorous antitrust enforcement is essential to restore competition to these markets, and it is now time to strengthen our antitrust laws to ensure that they are up to the job. This bill that Senator Specter and I are introducing today will significantly enhance our antitrust laws to ensure that the government has the necessary tools to take action to restore competition in this industry, and also direct that the government examine its enforcement policy to determine if additional changes are needed. Our bill has five elements, each essential to strengthening antitrust enforcement in the petroleum industry. It contains two important changes to existing antitrust law. First, it will amend the Clayton Act to prohibit withholding supplies of petroleum, gasoline or any other fuel for the primary purpose of increasing prices or creating a shortage. This provision will prevent the ability of oil producers and refiners to limit supply to manipulate price. Second, it incorporates our NOPEC bill--legislation I have introduced each Congress since 2000--to make the actions of the OPEC oil cartel subject to U.S. antitrust law. This provision will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. This provision will authorize the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress, and will remove the protections of sovereign immunity and the act of state doctrine from nations that participate in the oil cartel. Our NOPEC provision passed the Senate last year as an amendment to the energy bill, but was subsequently dropped by the House-Senate Conference Committee without explanation. It is past time to pass this much needed anti-cartel measure finally into law. Our bill also will direct that the antitrust enforcement agencies undertake several important actions to promote competition. The first two of these measures will address the government's response to the huge wave of consolidation in the oil industry. First, the bill will direct that the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission conduct a study and report their findings to us in nine months, as to whether the Clayton Act needs to be amended to ensure that mergers which truly lessen competition in the petroleum industry are prohibited. Second, the bill directs a study by the GAO to be completed within six months to examine whether the consent decrees and divestitures obtained by the Justice Department or FTC in the oil industry have been effective in protecting competition. The Attorney General and FTC are directed to consider additional action be required to restore competition upon completion of this report. Finally, the bill directs that the Attorney General and FTC Chairman establish a joint Federal-State task force to investigate information sharing among companies producing, refining, or marketing petroleum, gasoline or any other refined product. As Ranking Member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this bill is an important step to reforming our antitrust laws and restoring competition to the oil and gas industry. All of us can agree that anticompetitive conduct leading to higher prices for gasoline and other energy products simply cannot be tolerated. It is essential that we give our government the necessary tools to do the job, and I am certain our bill is a long overdue measure to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to introduce the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006. This legislation will make several important and overdue reforms to our antitrust laws to give our Federal Government more of the tools it needs to take action to combat anti-competitive conduct in the oil and gas industry. It will also direct that our antitrust enforcement agencies undertake several actions to ensure that they are enforcing our current antitrust laws properly. We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices are once again on the rise, with the national average price increasing more than thirty cents in the last month alone. Many industry experts fear, if current trends continue, that last summer's record levels of more than three dollars per gallon will be exceeded this coming summer. And prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. These price increases are a silent tax that steals hard earned money away from American consumers every time they visit the gas pump and every time they raise their thermostat to keep their family warm. There is much debate about the causes of these gas prices. The role of increasing worldwide demand and supply limitations obviously play a role. But our investigation in the Judiciary Committee--including two hearings in the last several months--have made plain the facts that make many of us suspect that oil and gas markets are not behaving in a truly competitive fashion. The GAO has found that there were over 2600 mergers and acquisitions in the oil industry since 1990, and that these mergers have caused the price of gasoline to increase from one to seven cents per gallon. Despite a substantial growth in demand, no new refineries have been opened in the United States in 25 years. Instead, more than half have been closed, so that overall national refining capacity declined by more than 9 percent from 1981 to 2004 while demand for gasoline rose 37 percent. Many argue that limiting refining capacity is actually in the oil companies' interest, as it enables them to gain market power over supply to raise price. And the oil industry has unquestionably enriched itself during this period of high prices. Oil industry profits reached record high levels last year, led by Exxon Mobil's record high profits of over $36 billion. An independent study by the consumers group Public Citizen found that U.S. oil refiners increased their profits on each gallon of gasoline they refined by 79 percent in the five-year period ending in 2004. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and other refined products--and compound their profits along the way-- demonstrates to many of us that that there is a failure of competition in our oil and gas markets. Indeed, at our hearing last month, the chief executives of our Nation's largest oil companies admitted they had no difficulty in passing along crude oil price increases to consumers. Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil forthrightly testified that ``[t]he high price of crude oil has been passed ultimately along to the consumer of whatever the finished product may be . . . .'' David O'Reilly of Chevron agreed. It also seems clear that there has been a failure of our antitrust enforcement agencies to take action to restore competition to this vital industry. Vigorous antitrust enforcement is essential to restore competition to these markets, and it is now time to strengthen our antitrust laws to ensure that they are up to the job. This bill that Senator Specter and I are introducing today will significantly enhance our antitrust laws to ensure that the government has the necessary tools to take action to restore competition in this industry, and also direct that the government examine its enforcement policy to determine if additional changes are needed. Our bill has five elements, each essential to strengthening antitrust enforcement in the petroleum industry. It contains two important changes to existing antitrust law. First, it will amend the Clayton Act to prohibit withholding supplies of petroleum, gasoline or any other fuel for the primary purpose of increasing prices or creating a shortage. This provision will prevent the ability of oil producers and refiners to limit supply to manipulate price. Second, it incorporates our NOPEC bill--legislation I have introduced each Congress since 2000--to make the actions of the OPEC oil cartel subject to U.S. antitrust law. This provision will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. This provision will authorize the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress, and will remove the protections of sovereign immunity and the act of state doctrine from nations that participate in the oil cartel. Our NOPEC provision passed the Senate last year as an amendment to the energy bill, but was subsequently dropped by the House-Senate Conference Committee without explanation. It is past time to pass this much needed anti-cartel measure finally into law. Our bill also will direct that the antitrust enforcement agencies undertake several important actions to promote competition. The first two of these measures will address the government's response to the huge wave of consolidation in the oil industry. First, the bill will direct that the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission conduct a study and report their findings to us in nine months, as to whether the Clayton Act needs to be amended to ensure that mergers which truly lessen competition in the petroleum industry are prohibited. Second, the bill directs a study by the GAO to be completed within six months to examine whether the consent decrees and divestitures obtained by the Justice Department or FTC in the oil industry have been effective in protecting competition. The Attorney General and FTC are directed to consider additional action be required to restore competition upon completion of this report. Finally, the bill directs that the Attorney General and FTC Chairman establish a joint Federal-State task force to investigate information sharing among companies producing, refining, or marketing petroleum, gasoline or any other refined product. As Ranking Member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this bill is an important step to reforming our antitrust laws and restoring competition to the oil and gas industry. All of us can agree that anticompetitive conduct leading to higher prices for gasoline and other energy products simply cannot be tolerated. It is essential that we give our government the necessary tools to do the job, and I am certain our bill is a long overdue measure to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the sesquicentennial of the great city of Madison, WI. Over the next few days people from all over Wisconsin will gather in Madison for the 150- year anniversary festivities. Madison is a city unlike all others. The vibrant people who give life to the city care about their community and appreciate the natural beauty and unique character that surrounds them. As a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, I spent 4 of the happiest years of my life in Madison and my fondness for the city is undiminished years later. Visiting the farmers' market is one of my favorite ways to spend a summer morning, even better if I can stop at Ella's Deli afterward. Since that time, Madison has continued to grow and flourish. It is a place of great culture, home to a vast array of interests, and a center of learning. Madison is fortunate to have first-class opera, symphony, and theater. Art and history enthusiasts can find the Chazen Museum of Art, the Wisconsin Historical Museum and the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art. As the home of the University of Wisconsin, as well as Edgewood College, Madison Area Technical College and Herzing College, Madison's student population is an important part of the community and drives fresh thinking and new ideas. As the State Capital, Madison has been the center of Wisconsin's proud progressive tradition. ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette founded his magazine, The Progressive, in 1909, and it is still published in Madison today. And we know that The Onion has its roots there, too. Parks and trails, lectures and sporting events, fine food and nightlife make Madison a great place to live and work. Money Magazine wrote what we knew all along when it rated Madison as the best place to live in the United States. These are just a few of the many more reasons that I am proud of the city of Madison and I congratulate them their sesquicentennial.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President I rise today as a proud alumnus of the University of Wisconsin to congratulate the Men's Cross Country and Women's Hockey teams on their recent NCAA National Championship victories. On November 21, 2005, the UW Men's Cross Country team won their first NCAA Division I title since 1988. This fourth NCAA title for the Men's Cross Country program broke their 3-year streak of second place finishes. Since their first competition in 1905, the UW Men's Cross Country program has been no stranger to success. Just 5 years after UW Madison formed the team, the Badgers won the first Big Ten cross country championship in school history. Their success continued over the decades, with many more Big Ten Championship wins. I also commend the UW Madison Women's hockey team. On March 26, 2006, the Badger Women defeated the defending champions, the University of Minnesota, to claim the 2006 NCAA National Championship. This victory represents several firsts: the first National Championship won by the Badger women's hockey team; the first NCAA Championship for any UW women's team since 1985; and the first Division I women's hockey title won by a school outside the State of Minnesota. This accomplishment for the UW Madison Women's Hockey Team follows a record setting season in which the team recorded 36 wins. I am proud to recognize these student-athletes and coaching staffs for all of their hard work and dedication, and I am pleased to have these two very deserving athletic teams represent our great state of Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them-- the goal of strengthening the family unit. Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain immigrant visas to enter the country legally. We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, a ``glitch'' in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take full advantage of this family reunification provision. Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises because minor siblings of U.S. citizens do not qualify as an ``immediate relative'' under current law. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her 5-year-old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative. For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekon Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their 6-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish. It is difficult to determine the exact scope of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year. If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now, so we can avoid tearing even more families apart. Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to face, so I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2006. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Currently, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a Committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation. And, because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million per year, for the next five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a testament to that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money along with a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer, including individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of State court administrators and State supreme court justices around the country. Our States face this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them are failing. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them-- the goal of strengthening the family unit. Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain immigrant visas to enter the country legally. We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, a ``glitch'' in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take full advantage of this family reunification provision. Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises because minor siblings of U.S. citizens do not qualify as an ``immediate relative'' under current law. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her 5-year-old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative. For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekon Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their 6-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish. It is difficult to determine the exact scope of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year. If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now, so we can avoid tearing even more families apart. Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to face, so I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2006. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Currently, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a Committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation. And, because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million per year, for the next five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a testament to that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money along with a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer, including individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of State court administrators and State supreme court justices around the country. Our States face this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them are failing. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I take no contributions from special interest PACS or lobbyists. My office operates under a set of rules governing our interaction with lobbyists that is stricter than current law. Regardless of any legislation, I always hold myself and my office to the highest standard of conduct in our service to the people of Wisconsin. The past several months, however, have highlighted for congressional action on lobbying and ethics reform. Public concern has increased about both illegal and unethical activities involving lobbyists. These include well-funded special interest groups that disguise their activities through the formation of coalitions, associations, and grassroots campaigns; improper campaign finance practices; lavish gifts to Members of Congress and their staffs apparently in violation of current congressional ethics rules; and earmarks slipped into legislation as favors for lobbyists without debate on proper consideration. The actions of others have made it clear that our current regulations on lobbying are outdated and ineffective. That is why I supported S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. It is my hope that this legislation will move us toward restoring the public confidence in Congress by shining light on congressional processes and cracking down on lobbyist influence. I realize that this bill falls short in certain areas. I was an original cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Act, which would have gone even further than the Senate-passed bill in reigning in inappropriate gifts, travel, and influence on Members of Congress. I supported amendments that would increase the transparency of Senate actions and voted against cloture to give other Senators a chance to offer amendments to strengthen the bill. If the legislation passed by the Senate today had gone further in increasing accountability for Members of Congress, it would have gone further in restoring the public faith. However, I believe it is also our responsibility to balance far-reaching legislation with the time constraints before us. This bill is far from perfect but it is an important first step in putting an end to the ``culture of corruption'' that has become a part of Washington. Serving in Congress is a great honor--one we must earn by always making the welfare of our constituents and the Nation our sole motivation. The current lobbying scandals show how far we have drifted from that ideal. But the reforms will do much to correct our course. And, as always, I will continue to hold myself and my office to the highest standard of conduct in our service to the people of Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Akaka, in support of his resolution designating April as Financial Literacy Month. Financial literacy is an imperative for all Americans. From creating a family budget, to managing credit, to saving for retirement-- Americans need to understand financial principles more than ever before. However, research shows that Americans lack a fundamental understanding of personal savings, financial planning, and budgeting. According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, over 60 percent of our high school students could not pass a quiz with basic questions on savings and budgeting. In addition, an AARP survey found that less than half of those over age 45 could identify and define basic financial terms such as ``diversification'' or ``compound interest.'' Financial literacy is critical as more Americans take on more of the responsibility for managing their retirement savings. Pension plans are shifting from defined benefit plans, which guaranteed a certain benefit level for a lifetime, to defined contribution plans, which are based on the investment decisions of individual employees. Unfortunately, too many individuals do not have the tools to plan for retirement in a manner that will guarantee their long-term financial health. In fact, the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that only 60 percent of current workers are actively saving for their retirement, and only 42 percent of workers and their significant others have calculated what their financial needs will be in retirement. The lack of financial literacy has serious ramifications, not only for individuals who fail to adequately budget and save, but for the national economy as well. The personal saving rate has recently turned negative, and personal saving is a component of national saving, which drives economic growth. These trends are certainly troubling. In recent years, the work of Senator Akaka and others have focused attention on the threat posed by our Nation's high financial illiteracy rate. For example, Senator Akaka's Excellence in Economic Education Act promotes financial literacy in primary and secondary schools. Many groups have developed innovative programs to reach children of all ages on this topic, and increased access to formal economics classes has helped acquaint students with the financial services marketplace. In addition, public- private partnerships have helped adults increase their financial literacy and gain a better understanding of long-term financial planning tools. It is my hope that this resolution will take another step to help increase awareness about the need to improve our Nation's financial literacy, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have serious reservations about this budget and will vote against it. At their best, budgets ought to embody discipline, vision, and accuracy. Not so for this budget. While it claims fiscal discipline, that claim is belied in the budget's bloated bottom line. While it claims strategic vision, that vision is a blurred blend of wasted dollars, missed opportunities, and neglected priorities. While it claims financial accuracy, that accuracy is of the quality found in an Enron balance sheet. The tax portion of the budget resolution is remarkable, not for what it contains, but for what it omits. It fails to account for the expiration of alternative minimum tax relief at the end of 2006. The AMT currently captures approximately 4 million, mostly middle-class, families and individuals in its high tax trap--a trap meant to catch only high-income taxpayers who take advantage of complicated loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. That number would swell to more than 34 million people in 2011 under this budget. Instead of AMT reform, this budget contains $228 million to accommodate tax cuts that were included in the House and Senate passed reconciliation bills currently in conference. I voted against the Senate tax reconciliation bill because I could not support unnecessary tax cut extensions at a time of burgeoning deficits. The deficits are still burgeoning, and I still oppose those unneeded and unjustified tax breaks for our highest income taxpayers. The budget's generosity to high-income taxpayers is offset by its miserly treatment of our Nation's educational system. The budget proposes the largest cut to federal education funding in the 26-year history of the Education Department. Students, educators, parents, and administrators all lose out. Under this budget, funding for No Child Left Behind and special education will still fall far short of their authorized levels. The same holds for Career and Technical Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and TRIO programs. I commend Senators Specter and Harkin for their successful amendment to restore some of these deeps cuts, and hope their provision will survive conference with the House. As ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am also troubled that some of the most painful cuts in this budget would fall on important programs at the Administration on Aging. The meager funding levels in this budget would put Meals on Wheels and Family Caregiver Support Services on the chopping block. That means that, while Wisconsin's senior population continues to grow from 705,000 senior citizens in 2000 to 730,000 seniors this year, and is projected to grow to 1.2 million seniors by 2025, this budget will not keep pace with needed services in Wisconsin or any other State. Funding for geriatric health professions is also likely to suffer. Title VII funding for geriatrics training is the only Federal program that specifically develops academic geriatricians at a time when more are needed. In prior years, Congress has demonstrated its strong support for the program through continued and increased appropriations over the past five years, including $31.5 million in fiscal year 2005. I was disappointed that the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS bill eliminated this program, and I am even more concerned that the budget before us makes it difficult, if not impossible to restore it in fiscal year 2007. Delegates to the recent White House Conference on Aging ranked increased training in geriatrics among their top ten resolutions at the once in a decade meeting in December of 2005. Clearly, this budget does not adequately prepare for our aging population. Nowhere is that more clear than in the budget resolution's treatment--or lack thereof--of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. During consideration of this budget, many of us worked to improve that benefit. The launch of the drug benefit has been confusing and complicated for too many seniors and people with disabilities. Medicare beneficiaries who do not choose a plan by the May 15 deadline and enroll at a later date will face a substantial and permanent penalty. I cosponsored an amendment to extend the enrollment period through all of 2006 to give people additional time to make the best plan choice for them. This amendment would have also allowed a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. Enrolling in drug plans has been challenging and confusing for too many beneficiaries, and it makes sense to give them a chance to correct an initial mistake made during this difficult first year of implementation. Unfortunately, our amendment failed by one vote and the Senate instead gave Medicare managers discretionary authority to decide to extend the enrollment deadline for the drug benefit. While I voted for that amendment because I believe it is important to send a strong signal, I am concerned by recent comments made by the President and Medicare officials. Those comments clearly show their resistance to giving seniors more time to make a careful decision about what drug plan they will be locked into for the remainder of the year. In addition, under current law, prescription drug plans can change the drugs they cover as many times as they want--while seniors are prohibited from changing drug plans except during the annual open enrollment period. This means that after seniors complete their research and choose the drug plan they believe is the best plan for their needs, they have no guarantee that their drugs will continue to be covered all year. That is why I cosponsored an amendment that would prohibit Medicare prescription drug plans from removing a drug from their approved list until the beginning of each plan year. This would ensure that seniors will not lose coverage of the drugs they take without being allowed to also change their plan. Finally, one of the most troublesome features of the new law is that it prohibits the Government from utilizing the tremendous purchasing power of the Medicare program to reduce prices. I cosponsored an amendment to repeal this provision and allow the Federal Government to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower drug prices for seniors. I am pleased the amendment passed and I hope this provision will remain in the final resolution. The budget was also improved by an amendment, of which I was an original sponsor, on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, MEP. The amendment, which was unanimously accepted, would fund the MEP at $106 million for fiscal year 2007. I am a long-time supporter of the MEP program and believe manufacturing is crucial to the U.S. economy. By offering resources, including organized workshops and consulting projects, to manufacturers, MEP allows them to streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times, and lower costs. At a time when we want to increase economic activity and strengthen the manufacturing base of our nation, the MEP is a fiscally sound investment. I am similarly pleased that this budget was amended to include adequate funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I voted to include $5.1 billion in order to fund this valuable program at its fully authorized level. Just a few months ago the Congress passed an energy bill, which I supported, which funded LIHEAP at $5.1 billion. This was a sorely needed update to a program where the funding has been frozen at an inadequate amount for years. There was bipartisan support for the Energy Bill, and I am pleased the Congress met the commitment we made in that bill. But even those improvements--important as they are to me--fail to make up for one of the central and most disturbing inadequacies of this budget. This budget simply fails to provide adequate resources to take care of our returning troops. Once again the President's budget requires the Veterans Administration to charge veterans an enrollment fee and increases the co-payments for veterans receiving medical care through the VA system. These charges add insult to injury when veterans are also being forced to wait for months before they are able to see a doctor at the local VA hospital. Senator Akaka's amendment tried to remedy this situation by adding an additional $1.5 billion to the budget, but his responsible approach was rejected. We face unprecedented challenges in our Nation today. War and terrorism demand our resources and attention. An aging population struggles to find the money to educate the next generation while battling sky high health care costs. Our powerful economy fights to create high quality jobs in a world market of constant technological innovation and fierce international competition. We need a budget that that sees and meets these challenges clearly-- vision. We need a budget that faces the difficult realities of our world today with honest proposals and precise numbers--accuracy. And we need a budget that does what we should and must and no more-- discipline. We have a budget that does none of that, and so I will vote ``no.'' amendment no. 3116

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the budget resolution with Senator Biden to significantly restore funding for juvenile justice programs. Our amendment will increase funding for these programs funded by the Department of Justice by adding $380 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-- OJJDP--budget. The amendment accomplishes this by raising the functional total for the justice allocation by $380 million offset in function 920--which gives the Appropriations Committee the flexibility to design the exact offsets. Let me briefly illustrate why we must put money back into these programs. Following the administration's lead, the Senate Budget Committee allocated $176 million to the OJJDP budget, which is about $167 million less than what we appropriated last year and $380 million less than the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. I am particularly disturbed that the Senate budget resolution assumes complete elimination of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program--JABG-- which received a little less than $50 million last year. JABG provides funding for intervention programs that address the urgent needs of juveniles who have had run-ins with the law. Positive intervention and treatment at this early stage of delinquency can prevent further violent behavior and steer a young person in the right direction before it's too late. That said, the Budget Committee seems to feel that the JABG program is ineffective. An example from my homestate of Wisconsin proves otherwise. Using Federal dollars from the JABG program, the Southern Oaks Girls School, a juvenile detention center outside of Racine, WI, built a new mental health wing to provide much-needed counseling services for the girl inmates. The administrator of this school cites a 56-percent drop in violent behavior since the new mental services have been offered. This is just one example of JABG's many successes--a record that supports keeping JABG alive and well-funded. The same is true of title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, the only Federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. Title V programs include preschool and parent training programs, youth mentoring, afterschool activities, tutoring, truancy reduction, substance abuse prevention and gang prevention outreach. Nonetheless, the Senate budget assumes a 50-percent cut to title--V penny pinching now that will cost us dearly in the future. According to many experts in the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves $3 or $4 in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime prevention programs supported by title V? The downward spiral of juvenile justice funding is a disturbing budget trend with ugly real world implications. Juvenile crime is an ongoing challenge and it is not a problem that is going to solve itself. Boosting funding for successful juvenile justice programs is the first step in addressing this challenge. Just a few short years ago in fiscal year 2002, juvenile justice programs received $556 million. Of that amount, more than $94 million went to the title V program and nearly $250 million was dedicated to JABG. We need to restore these initiatives to those robust levels and our amendment will do just that by adding $380 million to the OJJDP budget for juvenile justice programs. We have a choice in this Congress of where we want to invest our money. We can choose to address the roots of crime and invest in our children by preventing a life of criminal behavior. We can choose to intervene in a positive manner to work with those teens that have fallen through the cracks and have had a few scrapes with the law--we can turn many of those kids around. I urge my colleagues to make the right choice this year and support our amendment which will increase funding for juvenile justice programs. We can and must do better. Amendments Nos. 3167, 3168, and 3169 En Bloc

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to the Senate for accepting the Kohl-Snowe- Stabenow-DeWine-Lieberman amendment fully funding the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, for fiscal year 2007 at $106 million. I am a longtime supporter of the MEP program and believe manufacturing is crucial to the U.S. economy. American manufacturers are a cornerstone of the American economy and embody the best in American values. A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of living in the United States. Small and medium-sized manufacturers face unprecedented challenges in today's global economy. If it isn't China pirating our technologies and promising a low-wage workforce, it is soaring heath care and energy costs that cut into profits. Manufacturers today are seeking ways to level the playing field. One way to do that is through the MEP program. MEP offers resources such as organized workshops and consulting projects to manufacturers; these allow the manufacturers to streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times and lower costs. In Wisconsin, three of our largest corporations--John Deere, Harley-Davidson, and Oshkosh Truck--are working with Wisconsin MEP centers to develop domestic supply chains. I am proud to say that, thanks to MEP, these companies found it more profitable to work with small and medium sized Wisconsin firms than to look overseas for cheap labor. You would be hard pressed to find another program that has produced the results that MEP has. In fiscal year 2004, MEP clients reported 43,624 new or retained workers, sales of $4.532 billion, cost savings of $721 million, and plant and equipment investments of $941 million. The Senate, in accepting this amendment, clearly recognizes the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the current administration. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for MEP was $46.3 million, a 56 percent decrease from the $106 million appropriated for fiscal year 2006. Once again, it will be up to my colleagues and I in Congress to see to it that MEP is fully funded for fiscal year 2007. In an effort to invest in the future of manufacturing, I worked with Senator Smith and Senator DeWine to introduce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005 which would fund manufacturing related programs including MEP and the Advanced Technology Program--for 3 years. Manufacturing is an integral part of a web of inter-industry relationships that create a stronger economy. Manufacturing sells goods to other sectors in the economy and, in turn, buys products and services from them. Manufacturing spurs demand for everything from raw materials to intermediate components to software to financial, legal, health, accounting, transportation, and other services in the course of doing business. The future of manufacturing in the United States will be largely determined by how well small and medium-sized manufacturers cope with the changes in today's global economy. To be successful, manufacturers need state-of-the- art technologies to craft products more efficiently, a skilled workforce to operate those technologies, and a commitment from the government to provide the resources to allow manufacturers to remain competitive. At a time when economic recovery, supply chain reliability for consumer and defense goods, and global competitiveness are national priorities, I believe MEP continues to be a wise investment. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for accepting this amendment and recognizing the importance of the MEP program.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Menendez amendment that increases funding for port security by $965 million. The amendment is fully offset by closing $965 million in corporate tax loopholes and would reduce the debt by an additional $965 million. What the recent Dubai Ports World deal certainly has revealed is the importance of port security and our apparent vulnerability. Each year, 10 million cargo containers enter our ports, and we inspect roughly 6 percent of them. That means only about 600,000 are seen by our security officials, while the other 9.4 million are being handled exclusively by the shippers, port operators, and others. When we consider the fact that just one of the six ports whose operations would have taken over by DP World is equipped with a working radiation-detection system, we can begin to appreciate how crucial it is to address this issue. In 2003, Admiral Collins of the U.S. Coast Guard testified that it will cost $7 billion over the next 10 years to fully secure our ports. We have not even come close to funding port security at that pace. Though $7 billion may seem a daunting figure, suffering a catastrophic terrorist attack at one of our major ports would cost exponentially more. A recent war game conducted by Federal security agencies imagined all 360 major ports shut down for 9 days--which would not be an inconceivable step to take following a major terrorist attack upon a U.S. port. Such a shutdown would cost our country $58 billion and that doesn't even consider the direct physical costs of the attack itself. Compared to this grim scenario, investing $7 billion now to secure our ports is wise. The Menendez amendment moves us closer towards achieving the goal of 100-percent scanning of all cargo containers which pass through our ports. With $600 million dedicated to the port security grant program administered by the Department of Homeland Security, $100 million for new inspectors and security personnel, $100 million for research and development to create better scanning technology, $105 million for better radiation detection equipment, $10 million for deploying better scanning technology abroad, and $50 million to assist developing countries with cargo scanning, we will significantly improve port security. We can prevent a terrorist attack on our ports, but it will take Federal resources and determination to do so. We all hope we are not left in the wake of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented had we only made the necessary investments to better fund port security. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment which will reinvigorate and finance our commitment to secure our ports.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dayton amendment that increases funding for the Byrne grant program by $900 million. This is a straightforward amendment worthy of unanimous support. As most of us know, the Byrne grant program is a law enforcement funding program run by the Department of Justice. For 20 years, Byrne grants have funded State and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs. Unfortunately, all of this funding is eliminated in the Senate budget resolution which follows the administration's budget proposal. This marks the second year in a row in which President Bush has tried to kill the Byrne grant program. Given the Bush administration's attack on law enforcement funding, this proposed cut should come as no surprise. That said, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program was appropriated a little more than $416 million last year in formula funds--despite the administration's desire to eliminate it. But this amount is less than half of what the program received just a few short years ago. Quite simply, funding for local law enforcement has taken a nosedive under this administration, and it is our local police chiefs and sheriffs who are feeling the pain of these cuts. Consider this: since President Bush has taken office, funding for local law enforcement in Wisconsin via the Byrne grant program has been cut by more than two- thirds. As recently as 2001, Wisconsin received more than $9.2 million from the Byrne grant program. Thanks to this administration, Byrne grant funding has been steadily declining ever since, with Wisconsin receiving just a little under $3 million last year. Nonetheless, President Bush wants to go even further and eliminate this funding entirely. Of course, this would leave Wisconsin law enforcement nothing from the Byrne program. What do these cuts mean? It means law enforcement personnel are getting laid off, and that translates to fewer cops patrolling the beat, fewer assistant district attorneys prosecuting cases, and fewer detectives working drug cases, to cite just a few examples. Talk to any police chief, sheriff, or prosecutor back in your home State and they will tell you that the Byrne program is the backbone of Federal Aid for local law enforcement. Do we really want to walk away from a program with twenty years of success supporting our local police chiefs, sheriffs, and district attorneys? We can and must block the elimination of the Byrne grant program. The Dayton amendment would achieve this by boosting Byrne grant funds back to the fiscal year 2003 level of $900 million. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment which supports our local law enforcement agencies.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Chafee amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. Prior to the enactment of IDEA, students with disabilities were too often left out of our public education system. Today, IDEA is making sure that they have the same access to a high quality education and a real chance to live successful, productive lives--as their peers. Yet year after year, school districts in Wisconsin tell me that IDEA needs more funding. This year's budget is especially worrisome. It proposes to cut the Federal share of IDEA costs from 18 percent to 17 percent. That is less than half of the 40 percent ``full funding'' level that Congress committed to paying when IDEA was first adopted 31 years ago. I believe that a budget resolution serves as a statement of our Nation's values and priorities. Even though this amendment will not provide the funding increase needed for special education, it states in no uncertain terms that our Nation's priority must be to fully fund special education. I support the Chafee amendment and expect to support additional IDEA amendments that will go a step further and provide real increases for this important program. I hope my colleagues will join me in making a strong statement in support of special education as a top priority.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today after a thorough examination of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court. After that thorough examination, I cannot support the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. I fear that a Justice Alito will narrow our rights, limit our freedoms, and overturn decades of progress. To confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court would be to gamble with our liberties, a bet I fear the Constitution--and the American people-- would lose. Generations of Americans have looked to the Supreme Court as more than a simple legal tribunal asked to decide cases and controversies. Rather, we expect the Supreme Court to guard our liberties, protect our rights, and--where appropriate--expand our freedoms. This process of bringing life to the promises of the Constitution has never moved predictably--or smoothly. As Martin Luther King, Jr., once noted, ``Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step toward the goal of justice requires . . . the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.'' Throughout American history, those ``dedicated individuals'' have fought on many battlegrounds--from the steps of the White House and Congress, to the dangerous back roads traveled by the Freedom Riders. And somehow the fight always leads to the Supreme Court--it is there that these brave individuals have found refuge and, through their victories, changed America for the better. Many of these victories are now identified with individuals through familiar case names: Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Baker v. Carr and Miranda v. Arizona. Judge Alito has stated his allegiance to the principles of these cases--and we are grateful for that. But we would expect any nominee to any court in this land to agree that schools should not be segregated and votes should count equally. That is a starting point. But we must dig much deeper to discover whether Judge Alito should serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. We must ask ourselves: how will Judge Alito view the next ``dedicated individuals'' who come before him seeking justice? What of the next Brown? The next Gideon? We do not consider Judge Alito for a seat on the bench in 1954 or 1965 but, rather, in 2006, and possibly 2036. Given his narrow judicial philosophy--on display throughout his legal career--Judge Alito is unlikely to side with the next ``dedicated individual.'' This narrow judicial philosophy is clear, for example, in his views on civil rights. In his now famous 1985 job application, he took issue with the Warren Court decisions that established one-person/one-vote, Miranda rights, and protections for religious minorities. These statements leave the clear impression that his antagonism toward these decisions--decisions that helped religious and racial minorities receive protection from majority abuses--motivated Judge Alito's pursuit of the law. While Judge Alito claimed that he was merely describing his opinions as a young man, his judicial opinions suggest a more well-formed philosophy of limited rights and restricted civil liberties. He was in the extreme minority of judges around the country when he found that Congress has no ability to regulate machine guns. His efforts to strike down portions of the Family and Medical Leave Act were rejected by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist. He raised the bar to unreachable heights repeatedly in employment discrimination cases, to the point where the majority of his court concluded that he was attempting to ``eviscerate'' the laws entirely. His restrictive view of constitutional liberties was echoed in his thoughts about a woman's right to choose. In a 1985 job application, he expressed a legal view that there was no such right and worked hard to craft a legal strategy that would chip away at--and ultimately-- eliminate that right from the Constitution. When asked about this, Judge Alito has said--in essence--that was then and this is now. Yet even years after his work for the Reagan administration, his narrow views on privacy echoed throughout his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He would have placed more restrictions on a woman's freedom than other conservative judges-- including the woman he seeks to replace on the Supreme Court. Even today, Judge Alito is unwilling to declare that Roe v. Wade is ``settled law''--a pronouncement that Chief Justice Roberts made with ease. Judge Alito affirmed that one person/one-vote, integrated schools, and some privacy rights were settled, but not a woman's right to choose. In addition, Judge Alito's decisions call into question our right to be free of police intrusion and government power. For example, Judge Alito, in disagreement with his colleagues in the Reagan Justice Department, argued that the police acted reasonably in shooting--and killing--a fleeing, unarmed, teenage suspect. In many opinions as a judge, he deferred reflexively to the police in cases involving the interpretation of search warrants--including one permitting the strip search of a 10-year-old-girl. At a time in our history when the balance between our security and our civil liberties requires the active involvement of the courts, Judge Alito's deference to Presidential power concerns us. He promoted the radical idea of a ``unitary executive''--the concept that the President is greater than, not equal to, the other branches of Government. Judges are meant to protect us from unlawful surveillance and detention--not simply abide the President's wishes. Although it is the most important standard, judicial philosophy is not the only measure of a nominee. We had hoped that Judge Alito would have been able to satisfy the concerns we had with his record at his hearing. Instead, he chose to avoid answering many of our questions. His inability or unwillingness to answer those questions in even the most general manner did a disservice to the country and to his nomination. For example, when questioned on his support for Judge Bork--calling him ``one of the most outstanding nominees of the century''--Judge Alito answered that he was just supporting the administration's nominee. When questioned about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, he said he could not remember this group--despite citing it with pride in a job application. When questioned about whether Bush v. Gore should have been heard by the Supreme Court, Judge Alito said that he had not thought about it as a judge and did not have an opinion. In each of the six Supreme Court nominations that I have voted on, I have used the same test of judicial excellence. Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Roberts passed that test. Judge Alito does not. Judge Alito's record as a professional--both as a Justice Department official and as a judge--reflects something more than a neutral judicial philosophy. Instead, it suggests a judge who has strong views on a variety of issues, and uses the law to impose those views. Judge Alito has the right to see, read, and interpret the Constitution narrowly. And we have the obligation to decide whether his views have a place on the Supreme Court. I have decided they do not, and so I will oppose Judge Alito's nomination today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to accompany the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This bill does not reflect our Nation's shared priorities and is a far cry from representing Wisconsin values. The people of Wisconsin value quality education for their children, affordable and decent health care for their families, and sound job training for workers. This bill falls short on all three accounts. For the first time in a decade, the LHHS bill cuts total Federal education funding. Funding for No Child Left Behind programs would be cut by $779 million bringing it to its lowest level since 2002. Funding for Title I, which serves low-income, disadvantaged students and schools across the nation, would receive $9.9 billion below the authorized level, its smallest increase in 8 years. And again, Congress fails to live up to its promise to provide 40 percent of the costs of educating students with disabilities: the bill cuts the Federal share of special education spending from 18.6 percent to 18.0 percent, just as our school districts are struggling to keep up with rising costs. Funding for Pell grant awards, which help make higher education affordable for many students, is frozen at $4,050 for the fourth year in a row, funding for Even Start and Education Technology is slashed, and funding for the National Youth Sports Program is eliminated, leaving almost 1,500 Wisconsin young people without summer enrichment programs they have come to count on. The list goes on and on. And education is not the only investment shortchanged. Some of the largest cuts in the LHHS bill are in programs that help shore up the health care safety net for people lacking other access to care and that address shortages of healthcare providers in underserved urban and rural areas. The conference report cuts funding for community health centers, which serve the uninsured and underinsured, to a lower level than provided in either the House or Senate versions of the bill. This amount would not allow a single new community health center to open in the coming year. Funding for the Bureau of Health Professions, which helps recruit qualified health professions throughout the country, would be cut by $185 million, including the elimination of geriatric education centers and health education training centers. Rural health programs would be cut by $137 million, including the elimination of the healthy community access program and rural emergency medical services. In addition, funding levels have not kept pace with our need for investment in lifesaving biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health's budget would receive a funding increase of less than 1 percent, the smallest percentage increase to NIH since 1970. NIH will have to reduce the numbers of research grants awarded by 355. The bill would provide no increase in Federal funding for Alzheimer's research threatening the progress of promising research on that devastating disease. Less money would be available to support new research grants, attract talented, young researchers to the promising field of Alzheimer's research and fund clinical trials to test new drugs to treat the disease--and this is just one example of the damage to vital research that the LHHS conference report would do. Labor programs are not immune from the slash and burn approach to appropriations embodied in the conference report before us. They are cut by $430 million. At a time when five percent of Americans, and four and a half percent of people from my State of Wisconsin, are unemployed, this bill wrongly reduces adult job training by $31 million and youth job training by $36 million. Instead of helping the unemployed find work and providing training to upgrade the skills of those who have jobs, this conference report turns its back to them. I know we can do better for our children and families. I supported the Senate version of this bill, which was bipartisan and passed by a vote of 94-3. Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short; it is neither bipartisan nor bicameral, and actually provides $1.4 billion less than last year's level. In fact, LHHS is the only fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill to receive an overall cut in funding from last year. I want to thank Senators Specter and Harkin for working tirelessly to improve this bill. I also want to thank them for the modest increases they provided in the CMS Survey and Certification program, the ombudsman program, as well as their work to restore Perkins funding. However, I cannot support a bill that forces our schools, our health care system, and our workforce to do more with less. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this conference report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I joined many of my colleagues in opposing cloture on the Defense appropriations bill. Regrettably, I was forced to try and slow this bill down because language unrelated to our Nation's defense was inserted into the bill. In a cynical attempt to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, language that in the past has been filibustered, was included in the Defense bill. Using our men and women in the military as a shield, the ANWR bill was put in the Defense bill in a parliamentary game of chicken. Supporters of drilling in ANWR believed that if they included this language in the Defense bill, opponents of drilling in ANWR would never vote to hold up the Defense bill. They were wrong. I do not enjoy opposing a Defense bill while we have troops in harm's way, but the principle at stake here was too important. We will be sorry if we set the precedent that unpopular provisions can just be rolled into the bill that funds our defense. In the long run, letting that cynical strategy proliferate will hurt our country and the institution of the Senate. So today, when I opposed cloture, it was not a reflection of my support of our military. I believe in our men and women in uniform and believe that this bill should have been passed months ago. Instead, I opposed cloture because I believe that we should not use the Defense bill as a Trojan Horse to slip through legislation that would not be able to survive under the normal rules of the Senate.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues today in expressing sincere disappointment in the conference report to the budget reconciliation legislation. I could certainly echo the sentiments that we have already heard regarding the Medicaid and TANF provisions included in this conference report--two sections that will directly penalize hard working families, and prevent many from moving towards self-sufficiency. Or I could repeat the comments that this report represents not a compromise between the House and Senate bills, but an abuse of power that will harm rather than help, millions of families. While I share my colleagues' dissatisfaction with this conference report, I would like to highlight a section that may have been overlooked. The conferees made interesting decisions in the area of child support--they chose to include provisions that would allow States to ``pass through'' child support payments to families, provisions that I have fought to pass for several years. Yet in the same conference report, they chose to make deep cuts to the Child Support Enforcement Program, cuts that may inhibit States ability from actually passing through those child support dollars. I believe the inclusion of the child support ``pass through'' provisions is one of the few successes of this legislation. These provisions are similar to those included in S. 321, the Child Support Distribution Act. Senator Snowe and I have worked together for the past several years on this legislation, which allows States to ``pass through'' more child support collections to the families that need them, rather than send those dollars to the Federal Government. Specifically, the conference report has three major provisions related to the Child Support Distribution Act. The conference report eliminates pre-assistance assignment rules--families applying for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program would no longer be required to turn over their right to child support that accrues before they are receiving assistance. In addition, the Conference Report gives states the option to distribute more child support to families who have left assistance. Finally, for families currently receiving assistance, it allows States to let families keep more child support, rather than sending it to the Federal Government. These changes were included in the bipartisan, Senate Finance Committee-passed welfare reauthorization legislation. It is unfortunate, given the wide support for these provisions, that the cuts contained in this bill will place such a financial burden on the States that they will unlikely be able to actually pass through the funding to the families. The original House bill included a 40-percent cut to Federal child support funding. Thus, it would seem that the $5 billion cut included in the conference report before us is somehow less significant. This could not be further from the truth. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this conference report would mean that more than $8 billion in child support payments would go uncollected over the next 10 years. I will say that again so that my colleagues are clear: $8 billion in funds will not go to hardworking, single parent families; $8 billion that is owed to these families, that they rely on to meet their children's needs. These payments would go uncollected because the conference report retains a provision that 74 of my colleagues voted against last week. I offered a motion to instruct that asked conferees to reject the provisions in the House bill that would restrict the ability of States to draw down matching funds on child support incentive payments. In addition, I sent a letter to conferees that was signed by 49 Senators asking that this restriction not be included in the conference report. I have heard some of my colleagues argue that this is simply closing a loophole, that this funding source was not what Congress intended. I say to my colleagues that this is not the case. The reforms made to the child support system in 1998 created the performance-based system that has been proven to be so successful. Since this system was put in place, States have doubled their collection rates and have significantly improved their performance on every other measure. The changes in this conference report would undo these successes. In fact, the cuts will actually drive up costs in other programs, such as TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid. That is why these cuts are opposed by the National Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the National Conference of State Legislatures, among others. It is highly ironic that the conference report gives States the option to pass through more child support to families that deserve it, while also passing on a financial burden that will directly restrict their ability to do so. This bill will hurt millions of families, and it should have been defeated.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I once again rise to reluctantly, but adamantly, oppose the budget reconciliation bill before us today. I say reluctantly because the Senate ought to use the reconciliation procedure for the purposes for which it was intended: making difficult choices to reduce spending. We have an obligation to bring our Nation's budget back into balance so we don't saddle future generations with endless debt and economic ruin. However, this budget fails on every level to achieve this goal. And even worse, the budget cuts that this bill does make fall squarely on lower-income Americans who can least afford them. One provision in this conference agreement that I support relates to extension of the Milk Income Lost Contract, MILC, program. MILC, which expired at the end of the last fiscal year, provides countercyclical support for the Nation's dairy sector. It is targeted. It is fair. It is essential. Moreover, it enjoys the President's support. It makes sense as part of the balanced Agriculture package in this bill. But even this one bright spot is not enough to save this bill or the budget plan of which it is a part. This bill is just one piece of a fraudulent, fiscally, and morally bankrupt budget which I cannot endorse. While the conference agreement we are now voting on cuts almost $40 billion in spending, waiting in the wings is a tax-cut bill that will likely cost more than $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy. The math simply doesn't add up. You can't pass a bill to cut spending by $40 billion and follow it up with a tax bill that will cost more than $70 billion and claim you are reducing the deficit it's simply untrue and irresponsible. I am willing to make the hard choices to bring our budget deficit down, but this conference agreement does not reflect our Nation's priorities. I cannot support taking vital services away from families that need them the most--and use those cuts as a fig leaf to hide tax breaks for those who need them the least. I am particularly disappointed that the House and Senate conference committee has come back with an agreement that is actually worse than the original Senate-passed bill. This so-called compromise causes more harm to low-income Americans while shielding powerful special interests, such as pharmaceutical companies and the managed care industry, from any sacrifice. This conference report achieves much of its savings by requiring low- income Medicaid beneficiaries to pay more out-of-pocket for health care, and taking away health care services for which many beneficiaries are currently covered. Even more egregious, negotiators dropped a common-sense provision in the Senate-passed bill that would have saved billions of dollars by eliminating a slush fund for private insurance companies in the Medicare prescription drug program. This bill before us also fails our Nation's students who are struggling to pay for college. Student loans help to ensure that every student in America can choose higher education regardless of his or her financial or social background. These programs are an investment in our future and an investment in a diverse, educated population who will lead this country in the 21st century. At a time of rising tuition costs, this conference report would actually make college less affordable. It would establish a fixed interest rate instead of maintaining today's lower variable rates-- leaving the typical student borrower, who has $17,500 in student loan debt, having to pay up to an additional $5,800 in order to repay his or her college loans. It is simply unacceptable to make the largest raid on the student aid program in history at a time when millions of families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs. And it is inexcusable to do this in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest in our society. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill--and the irresponsible and cruel budget of which it is a part. It does not reflect the right budget priorities, and it certainly does not reflect the values of American families. And adding insult to injury, these harmful cuts will not even help our country dig its way out of a large and growing budget deficit. This bill will soon be combined with tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that exceed, by tens of billions of dollars, the value of the cuts themselves, and leave our fiscal situation in even worse shape than before. We should reject this reckless budget plan and instead work to make the responsible choices that the American people expect. expiring tax provisions

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing and celebrate the life of William Proxmire--a great Senator, a great Wisconsinite, and a great man. It is particularly fitting that we pay tribute to Senator Proxmire during this first part of morning business--time he virtually always controlled during his over 30 years in the Senate. He was a giant in the Senate in a time when this Chamber was filled with giants. He followed his conscience, lived his principles, said what he thought, and thought more actively and deeply than most. Senator Proxmire came to the Senate in 1957, winning a special election to fill the seat of Joseph McCarthy. Overjoyed at a Democratic pickup in a narrowly divided Senate, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson met Proxmire at the airport to shake his hand. Two years later, Senator Proxmire was on the floor of the Senate calling LBJ a ``dictator'' in a speech dubbed by the press as ``Proxmire's farewell address.'' But that was Prox: independent, outspoken, and not at all afraid to challenge conventions or conventional wisdom. In fact, there was very little that was conventional about William Proxmire. He was a Democrat but not a reliable vote for the Democrats--or the Republicans, for that matter. He was fiercely protective of consumer rights, civil liberties, and oppressed minorities all over the world--a true liberal Democrat on social issues. But he also had a legendary frugal streak, perhaps a product of his Harvard business school background. He believed in the free market and business competition, and hated to see money wasted. His Golden Fleece awards and relentless scrutiny of Department of Defense procurement were renowned--and shamed the powers-that-be into saving many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. He did not accept sloppiness or waste in Government or in the conduct of his own business and personal affairs. He started each day with hundreds of push-ups and a 5-mile run. He demanded of his office the same sort of efficiencies he demanded from the rest of Government and returned one-third of his office budget to the Treasury every year. He was as disciplined as he was determined. He still holds the record for most consecutive rollcall votes: 10,252 between April of 1966 and October of 1988. And there are colleagues still serving today who remember his daily morning business speeches on the Senate floor. Most of these speeches were on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention languished in the Senate for over 20 years, viewed as a lost cause by its few supporters. But not William Proxmire. He gave a speech about the convention every day the Senate was in session from 1967 to 1986, when the convention was ratified by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 83 to 11--3,211 speeches in all. One former staff member remembers that Senator Proxmire was often the only Member on the floor during his speeches, so he concentrated on the Presiding Officer. So one by one, he reasoned and cajoled his captive colleagues into supporting this seminal human rights measure. William Proxmire didn't only fight for his principles, he lived them. He was the last of the true populist politicians, who took no campaign contributions, spent virtually nothing on his campaigns, and shook the hand of almost everyone in the State of Wisconsin--whether they supported him or not. Though he broke every rule of modern campaign strategy, he won his reelections in landslides and was beloved by the people of Wisconsin. Senator Proxmire leaves behind his wife Ellen, five children, and nine grandchildren. He also is mourned by his Senate family, both those Senators who served with him and the members of his staff renowned for their professionalism, intelligence and loyalty. Neither Wisconsin nor the Senate will see his equal again, and both are the poorer for his passing. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold.