Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I rise today to join Senator Smith and a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act. This bill builds both on a proposal in the President's budget, and on legislation we introduced last year, to serve the neediest individuals in our society. Wisconsin is the home for hundreds of thousands of Hmong family members who were resettled there in the years after the Vietnam War, some as recently as the 1990s. Many of these Hmong fought with the CIA in Laos during the Vietnam War, providing critical assistance to U.S. forces. After the fall of Saigon, thousands of Hmong fled Laos and its communist Pathet Lao government. The United States remains indebted to these courageous individuals and their families. In addition to the Hmong, America has served as a shelter for Jews and Baptists fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union; and for Iraqis and Cubans escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy toward refugees and asylees embodies the best of our country-- compassion, opportunity, and freedom. I am proud of the example our policies set with respect to the treatment of those seeking refuge. But I am disappointed in our decision to allow these people to enter the country and then deny them the means to live. Thousands of people who fled religious and political persecution to seek freedom in the U.S. are being punished by a short-sighted policy. A provision in the 1996 welfare reform bill restricted the amount of time that elderly and disabled refugees and asylees could be eligible for Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits. These benefits serve as a basic monthly income for individuals who are 65 or older, disabled or blind. Over the next 4 years, it is estimated that 40,000 refugees and political asylees could lose these important benefits on which they often rely. The 7-year time limit on SSI benefits for legal humanitarian immigrants has already impacted individuals and families across the country, and will impact thousands more without Congressional action. The provision specifically mandated that to avoid losing this important support, refugees and asylees must become citizens within the 7 year limit. Unfortunately, this has proved impossible for far too many. The process of becoming a citizen only truly begins after a refugee has resided in the U.S. for 5 years as a lawful permanent resident. And beyond that, there are many other barriers, such as language skills and processing and bureaucratic delays within the various agencies, which an immigrant must overcome before they become naturalized. Beginning in 2003, immigrants trapped in this process--too often the most vulnerable elderly and families--began to lose their SSI benefits with no hope of recourse. This inherent flaw in the system has to be changed. That is why we are re-introducing the SSI Extension for Disabled and Elderly Refugees Act. This legislation extends the amount of time that refugees and asylees have to become citizens to 9 years. In addition, the bill contains a ``reach back'' provision: it retroactively restores benefits to those individuals who have already lost them for an additional 2 years. This provision helps the individuals who need it most; humanitarian immigrants who are trapped in the system and have lost this important income source. Across the country, states are recognizing the peril that faces individuals who lose these benefits. Most recently, in January, the State of Illinois passed legislation that allows individuals to obtain monthly grants through a State program, if their Federal SSI benefits are suspended. This action highlights the need for Congress to act. We cannot continue to pass the buck to cash-strapped States. I believe we must act now to protect these individuals. I cannot stress how important this legislation is to many in the State of Wisconsin. Last year there were several stories across the state regarding the plight of Hmong families and individuals whose citizenship has been delayed and were faced with losing their benefits. That was a year ago, and Congress failed to pass the legislation that Senators Smith, Lugar, Feingold and I had worked so hard on. We cannot let another year go by without helping these individuals. In addition to the Hmong population in Wisconsin, almost every State in the country is home to immigrants who will be affected by the limit. Our country has long been a symbol of freedom, equality and opportunity. Our laws should reflect that. Every day that goes by could result in the loss of a refugee's support system--I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and restore the principles we were put here to protect.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today on the final day of debate on the class action reform bill to say a final word in support of the legislation. We have worked for many years on this bill through numerous hearings, committee markups and repeated floor consideration. We can proudly say that we are about to succeed in passing modest, yet important changes to the class action process. Consumers and businesses across the country will benefit and not a single case with merit will go unheard. Today is the culmination of many years of our bipartisan efforts on this issue as we have attempted to make the class action system fairer for both consumers and businesses alike. Our success once again demonstrates that the Congress works best when we work together. I am most proud that we were able to construct a bipartisan core of supporters to pass this bill. While this bill does not solve all of the problems in the system, consumers will never again need to worry about being injured and receiving worthless coupons as damages. Businesses will never again need to fear being sued in a small county court where the rules are stacked against them. Most importantly, under our bill every claim with merit will still go forward and the court house doors will always be open. It is a well-known saying that success has many fathers, so many will deserve thanks for their work leading to the passage of this bill today. I would like to mention a few people specifically who have been indispensable to the passage of this legislation. Senator Grassley and I have worked on this bill for 7 years now. He has been a good partner and leader. He deserves tremendous credit for his willingness to accept bipartisan compromises in an effort to get this bill done. Senators Carper and Hatch also deserve praise for the tremendous energy that they have brought to this bill over the past two Congresses. Without them, class action reform certainly would not have made it to the verge of passage today. In addition, Senators Dodd, Feinstein, Schumer and Landrieu contributed significantly in this process by making important changes to the bill. They were successful in identifying ways to ensure that primarily State cases stayed in state court and only truly national cases could be removed to the Federal courts. This has been our goal all along. With their assistance we have accomplished it. I would be remiss if I did not thank the many very fine staffers whose work often goes unheralded. This bill addresses a very technical and difficult area of the law, so their contribution to this bill was truly indispensable. All of the following were essential to the final passage of this bill: Rita Lari with Senator Grassley; Jonathon Jones, Sheila Murphy and John Kilvington with Senator Carper; David Hantman with Senator Feinstein; Jeff Berman with Senator Schumer; Shawn Maher with Senator Dodd; and Harold Kim with Senator Hatch. Finally, Paul Bock and Jeff Miller, my chief of staff and chief counsel respectively, deserve significant credit for the passage of this bill. They have worked tirelessly on this legislation for several years and have provided wise counsel during the long and difficult negotiations on this legislation. With their assistance, we succeeded in crafting a moderate bill that will help business and consumers alike. For that, we should all be proud.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Child Support Distribution Act 2005, which Senator Snowe and I introduced today. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her hard work and dedication to this important issue and am proud to have worked with her for many years on this legislation. And I'd like to thank Senators Rockefeller and Landrieu for their cosponsorship and support. Senator Snowe and I have worked, both separately and in tandem, on issues related to child support for more than ten years. On many occasions, we've come close to seeing the positive changes contained in this legislation enacted. In 2000, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18. In the 108th Congress, our legislation was included in the TANF Reauthorization bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support. This year, S. 6, which was introduced by Senator Santorum, and is supported by Majority Leader Frist and Senators McConnell and Hutchison, contains child support provisions that are almost based entirely on the legislation we're discussing today. This legislation consistently receives bipartisan support because it takes a common sense approach to child support. By passing through more child support funds directly to low-income families, rather than sending it to the federal government, non-custodial parents are more likely pay, and families see a huge benefit from the additional income. Currently, approximately 60 percent of poor children who live with their mothers and whose fathers live outside the home do not receive child support. Though there are a variety of reasons why non-custodial parents may not be paying support for then children, many don't pay because the system actually discourages them from doing so. Under current law, $2.1 billion in child support is retained every year by the State and Federal Governments as repayment for welfare benefits--rather than delivered to the children to whom it is owed. Fifty-six percent of that amount is for families who have left welfare. Since the money doesn't benefit their kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them. The current rules withhold a key source of income for low-income families that could help them maintain self-sufficiency. According to the Center for Law and Social Policy, child support constitutes 16 percent of family income for low-income households that receive it. For families who leave welfare, this number almost doubles. A Washington State study of families leaving welfare with regular child support payments found that these families found work faster and kept jobs longer, compared to families without steady child support income. It's time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin has been a leader in this practice, which has benefited thousands of working families. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative program of passing through child support payments directly to families. An evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial parents are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin has found that, overall, this policy does not increase government costs. That makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to families means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt to depend on public help to meet other needs such as food, transportation or child care. We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow Wisconsin's example. This legislation gives States options and strong incentives to send more child support directly to families who are working their way off--or are already off--public assistance. Not only will this create the right incentives for non-custodial parents to pay, but it will also simplify the job for States, who currently face an administrative nightmare in following the complicated rules of the current system. This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it's only fair that if we are asking parents to move off welfare, stay off welfare, and take financial responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they are owed and who are working so hard to succeed. It is time for Congress to make this change. It's time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and make sure that children get the support they need and deserve.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation addresses the continuing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange consumers across America. The time for this bill has come. We have worked very closely on a bipartisan basis with Senator Grassley, Senator Carper, and Senator Hatch for several Congresses and, more recently with Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Schumer, and Landrieu. Without this close cooperation and tremendous effort, we would not be on the verge of passing class action reform. Finally, Senators Frist and Reid deserve praise for crafting a fair process for the consideration of this legislation. Class action cases are an important part of our justice system because they enable people who have been harmed in similar ways to pursue claims collectively that would otherwise be too expensive to bring individually. When these cases proceed as intended, injured parties are able to successfully pursue lawsuits in cases involving defective products or employment discrimination, or other wrongs, and recover fair damages. Unfortunately, the system does not always work as it should. In fact, consumers are frequently getting the short end of the stick in class action cases, recovering only coupons or pocket change while their lawyers reap millions. Too often, the class action system is being taken advantage of to the detriment of consumers and others who have been harmed. The Washington Post put it clearly: No portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class actions. Our bill addresses the problem in a few straightforward ways. First, the bill helps consumers by guaranteeing that they receive a better understanding of their rights and responsibilities in a class action lawsuit. Our bill includes a class action consumer bill of rights to limit coupon cases and other unfair settlements. Second, this bill provides that state attorneys general are notified of proposed class action settlements. This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a settlement is fair for the plaintiffs and to alert the court if they do not believe that it is. Finally, we allow some class action lawsuits to be removed to Federal court. As we all know, some are concerned about this provision. Yet, moving some class action cases to Federal court is only common sense. When a problem affects people in many States or involves a national problem, it is only fitting that the case be heard in Federal court. We took special care during the course of our negotiations to ensure that the appropriate courts heard the right cases. This bill has never been an effort to either stop class action cases or send them all to the Federal courts. Rather, those cases that primarily involve people from only one State will remain in that State's court. These changes will ensure that class action cases are handled efficiently and in the appropriate venues and that no case that has merit will be turned away. Stories of nightmare class action settlements that affect consumers around the country are all too frequent. For example, a suit against Blockbuster video in Texas yielded dollar off coupons for future video rentals for the plaintiffs while their attorneys collected $9.25 million. In California State court, a class of 40 million consumers received $13 rebates on their next purchase of a computer or monitor-- in other words they had to purchase hundreds of dollars more of the defendants' product to redeem the coupons. In essence, the plaintiffs received nothing, while their attorneys took almost $6 million in legal fees. We could list many more examples of abuses in State court, but let me discuss just one more case that is almost too strange to believe. I am speaking about the notorious Bank of Boston class action suit and the outrageous case of Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI. She was an unnamed class member of a lawsuit in Alabama State court against her mortgage company that ended in a settlement. The settlement was a bad joke. She received $4 and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys pocketed $8 million. Yet the huge sums that her attorneys received were not the worst of the story. Soon after receiving her $4, Ms. Preston discovered that her lawyers took $80, twenty times her recovery, from her escrow account to help pay their fees. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the lawyers who quickly turned around and sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited, for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place. The class action process is clearly in serious need of reform. Comprehensive studies support this position. For example, a study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute finds that class action cases are being brought disproportionately in a few State courts so that the plaintiffs' lawyers may take advantage of those specific courts that have relaxed class action rules. A RAND study offered three primary explanations for why national class action cases should be in Federal court. ``First, Federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more strictly than State judges . . . Second, State judges may not have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more appropriate that this take place in Federal court than in State court. Our bill attempts to follow these recommendations and ensure that cases with a national scope are heard in Federal court. All the while, cases that are primarily of a single state interest remain in State court under our bill. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. We do not cause undue delays for these cases. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give back to regular people their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. Mr. President, we believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. The bill represents a finely crafted compromise. We believe it will make a difference. We urge its passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Child Support Distribution Act 2005, which Senator Snowe and I introduced today. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her hard work and dedication to this important issue and am proud to have worked with her for many years on this legislation. And I'd like to thank Senators Rockefeller and Landrieu for their cosponsorship and support. Senator Snowe and I have worked, both separately and in tandem, on issues related to child support for more than ten years. On many occasions, we've come close to seeing the positive changes contained in this legislation enacted. In 2000, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18. In the 108th Congress, our legislation was included in the TANF Reauthorization bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support. This year, S. 6, which was introduced by Senator Santorum, and is supported by Majority Leader Frist and Senators McConnell and Hutchison, contains child support provisions that are almost based entirely on the legislation we're discussing today. This legislation consistently receives bipartisan support because it takes a common sense approach to child support. By passing through more child support funds directly to low-income families, rather than sending it to the federal government, non-custodial parents are more likely pay, and families see a huge benefit from the additional income. Currently, approximately 60 percent of poor children who live with their mothers and whose fathers live outside the home do not receive child support. Though there are a variety of reasons why non-custodial parents may not be paying support for then children, many don't pay because the system actually discourages them from doing so. Under current law, $2.1 billion in child support is retained every year by the State and Federal Governments as repayment for welfare benefits--rather than delivered to the children to whom it is owed. Fifty-six percent of that amount is for families who have left welfare. Since the money doesn't benefit their kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them. The current rules withhold a key source of income for low-income families that could help them maintain self-sufficiency. According to the Center for Law and Social Policy, child support constitutes 16 percent of family income for low-income households that receive it. For families who leave welfare, this number almost doubles. A Washington State study of families leaving welfare with regular child support payments found that these families found work faster and kept jobs longer, compared to families without steady child support income. It's time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin has been a leader in this practice, which has benefited thousands of working families. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative program of passing through child support payments directly to families. An evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial parents are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin has found that, overall, this policy does not increase government costs. That makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to families means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt to depend on public help to meet other needs such as food, transportation or child care. We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow Wisconsin's example. This legislation gives States options and strong incentives to send more child support directly to families who are working their way off--or are already off--public assistance. Not only will this create the right incentives for non-custodial parents to pay, but it will also simplify the job for States, who currently face an administrative nightmare in following the complicated rules of the current system. This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it's only fair that if we are asking parents to move off welfare, stay off welfare, and take financial responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they are owed and who are working so hard to succeed. It is time for Congress to make this change. It's time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and make sure that children get the support they need and deserve.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Snowe to reauthorize funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This successful Commerce Department program, based in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 States. These local centers have played a critical role in helping our manufacturers turn out the most advanced products, using cutting edge technology and processes, to prevent these firms from being forced out of the global marketplace. My State of Wisconsin is a great manufacturing State. Small- and medium-sized manufacturers and a few larger concerns make us the State economy most dependent on manufacturing--save Indiana. Thus, I am keenly aware of the devastating job losses experienced by American manufacturers. In Wisconsin alone, we lost more than 90,000 manufacturing jobs over the last four years. While 2004 brought encouraging news in which we saw a net gain of 3.1 percent or 15,400 manufacturing jobs in my State, this pace of economic growth will never bring us back to where we were before. That is why I am committed to doing all I can to help our manufacturers. And that is why I am such a strong supporter of the MEP program, one of the only Federal programs which has provided tangible assistance to the manufacturing sector to help companies stay in business and retain jobs. The MEP program served 18,422 manufacturers in fiscal year 2003 alone, and over the life of the program has assisted more than 184,000 firms across the Nation. MEP's top areas of assistance are process improvement, quality inspection, business system and management, human resources, plant layout and manufacturing cells and product development. MEP streamlines operations, integrates new technologies, shortens production times and lowers costs, leading to improved efficiency by offering resources to manufacturers, including organized workshops and consulting projects. MEP removes the drag on profits and maximizes the potential of our manufacturing firms. Wisconsin is the home to two MEP centers which have both had a significant impact on the productivity of companies throughout the State. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin manufacturers improve their productivity and profitability. Over that time WMEP customers have reported a positive impact of nearly $400 million in improvements attributable to the assistance provided by MEP. And, since 1994, the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, targeting the more rural northwestern part of the State, has provided over 3,189 technical assistance activities to over 942 companies, created or retained 1,979 jobs, and achieved client-reported impacts of over $132 million. One of the novel aspects of the MEP program is that it is a Federal- State-private partnership. Federal funding leverages State and private funding. Manufacturers pay reduced fees for the services and States match the Federal funding. In many cases, the Federal component is only one-third of the funding for the program. Although the MEP program has broad bipartisan support, with 55 senators writing a letter in support of the program last year, we have had to struggle in recent years to ensure that MEP centers receive the funding they deserve. In the last two years, the Administration has proposed deep reductions in the program that would have forced MEP centers around the country to close. In fiscal year 2004, despite Senate support for full funding for the MEP Program, funding was reduced by 60 percent from $106 million to $39.6 million. As a result, 58 MEP centers closed and staff was reduced by 15 percent. Working with several other Senators, we succeeded in having amendments adopted on the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization and appropriations bills to permit and direct the Commerce Department to reprogram unobligated funds to the MEP program in fiscal year 2004 to keep the MEP network intact. Fortunately, in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, MEP received $109 million and was renamed the Hollings MEP program, in recognition of the strong support Senator Hollings gave this program during his tenure in the Senate. Next week the President will be sending us his proposed budget for fiscal year 2006. I am deeply concerned at reports that indicate that the Administration intends to propose yet again to cut this vital program. We have introduced this legislation today as a sign that there continues to be bipartisan support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I hope that these reports were incorrect and that the Administration recognizes that we cannot abandon our small- and medium- sized manufacturers. They are the key to economic growth, good paying jobs, and a healthy balance of trade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a long list of colleagues in introducing a bill to extend the MILC program. This measure is supported by members from different regions of the country and both political parties. This broad base of support is a clear indication of this issue's importance. MILC, as most of my colleagues know, is the program created in the 2002 Farm Bill after a very painful battle over the Northeast Dairy Compact. Many recall what a difficult time that was, with one group of dairymen pitted against another. I don't want to revisit that time. The MILC program bridged a bitter regional divide by providing a critical safety net when prices are low. And when prices rebound, the MILC program becomes dormant and costs nothing. The problem with MILC is that it expires on September 30 of this year--two years before the rest of the Farm Bill. In addition to the cosponsors, MILC extension is supported by sixteen governors, including the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Vermont, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, New York, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and North Dakota. Moreover, the President of the United States committed himself to MILC extension during the presidential campaign. I am hopeful the President's budget will include MILC extension when we receive it next Monday. That would be a helpful next step. But the fact of the matter is that budget resolutions never get signed into law in and of themselves. They are merely a framework for further discussion and work. And it will take effort both from Congress and the administration to see this extension translated into law. I look forward to working with the President and his new Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that happens.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a long list of colleagues in introducing a bill to extend the MILC program. This measure is supported by members from different regions of the country and both political parties. This broad base of support is a clear indication of this issue's importance. MILC, as most of my colleagues know, is the program created in the 2002 Farm Bill after a very painful battle over the Northeast Dairy Compact. Many recall what a difficult time that was, with one group of dairymen pitted against another. I don't want to revisit that time. The MILC program bridged a bitter regional divide by providing a critical safety net when prices are low. And when prices rebound, the MILC program becomes dormant and costs nothing. The problem with MILC is that it expires on September 30 of this year--two years before the rest of the Farm Bill. In addition to the cosponsors, MILC extension is supported by sixteen governors, including the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Vermont, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, New York, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and North Dakota. Moreover, the President of the United States committed himself to MILC extension during the presidential campaign. I am hopeful the President's budget will include MILC extension when we receive it next Monday. That would be a helpful next step. But the fact of the matter is that budget resolutions never get signed into law in and of themselves. They are merely a framework for further discussion and work. And it will take effort both from Congress and the administration to see this extension translated into law. I look forward to working with the President and his new Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that happens.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Snowe to reauthorize funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This successful Commerce Department program, based in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 States. These local centers have played a critical role in helping our manufacturers turn out the most advanced products, using cutting edge technology and processes, to prevent these firms from being forced out of the global marketplace. My State of Wisconsin is a great manufacturing State. Small- and medium-sized manufacturers and a few larger concerns make us the State economy most dependent on manufacturing--save Indiana. Thus, I am keenly aware of the devastating job losses experienced by American manufacturers. In Wisconsin alone, we lost more than 90,000 manufacturing jobs over the last four years. While 2004 brought encouraging news in which we saw a net gain of 3.1 percent or 15,400 manufacturing jobs in my State, this pace of economic growth will never bring us back to where we were before. That is why I am committed to doing all I can to help our manufacturers. And that is why I am such a strong supporter of the MEP program, one of the only Federal programs which has provided tangible assistance to the manufacturing sector to help companies stay in business and retain jobs. The MEP program served 18,422 manufacturers in fiscal year 2003 alone, and over the life of the program has assisted more than 184,000 firms across the Nation. MEP's top areas of assistance are process improvement, quality inspection, business system and management, human resources, plant layout and manufacturing cells and product development. MEP streamlines operations, integrates new technologies, shortens production times and lowers costs, leading to improved efficiency by offering resources to manufacturers, including organized workshops and consulting projects. MEP removes the drag on profits and maximizes the potential of our manufacturing firms. Wisconsin is the home to two MEP centers which have both had a significant impact on the productivity of companies throughout the State. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin manufacturers improve their productivity and profitability. Over that time WMEP customers have reported a positive impact of nearly $400 million in improvements attributable to the assistance provided by MEP. And, since 1994, the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, targeting the more rural northwestern part of the State, has provided over 3,189 technical assistance activities to over 942 companies, created or retained 1,979 jobs, and achieved client-reported impacts of over $132 million. One of the novel aspects of the MEP program is that it is a Federal- State-private partnership. Federal funding leverages State and private funding. Manufacturers pay reduced fees for the services and States match the Federal funding. In many cases, the Federal component is only one-third of the funding for the program. Although the MEP program has broad bipartisan support, with 55 senators writing a letter in support of the program last year, we have had to struggle in recent years to ensure that MEP centers receive the funding they deserve. In the last two years, the Administration has proposed deep reductions in the program that would have forced MEP centers around the country to close. In fiscal year 2004, despite Senate support for full funding for the MEP Program, funding was reduced by 60 percent from $106 million to $39.6 million. As a result, 58 MEP centers closed and staff was reduced by 15 percent. Working with several other Senators, we succeeded in having amendments adopted on the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization and appropriations bills to permit and direct the Commerce Department to reprogram unobligated funds to the MEP program in fiscal year 2004 to keep the MEP network intact. Fortunately, in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, MEP received $109 million and was renamed the Hollings MEP program, in recognition of the strong support Senator Hollings gave this program during his tenure in the Senate. Next week the President will be sending us his proposed budget for fiscal year 2006. I am deeply concerned at reports that indicate that the Administration intends to propose yet again to cut this vital program. We have introduced this legislation today as a sign that there continues to be bipartisan support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I hope that these reports were incorrect and that the Administration recognizes that we cannot abandon our small- and medium- sized manufacturers. They are the key to economic growth, good paying jobs, and a healthy balance of trade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in many ways, Judge Gonzales's life story is the American dream--rising from humble beginnings to being nominated to be our Attorney General. Yet, Judge Gonzales must be evaluated on more than his life story; indeed, the decisions he has made in his public capacity must be closely scrutinized. We are, after all, being asked to confirm him as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. We begin with a standard of granting deference to the President to surround himself with the people he chooses for his Cabinet. But that deference is not absolute. The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer, but the people's lawyer. As I listened to the nominee's answers at his confirmation hearing, read his responses to our additional questions, and examined the facts, I found that my deference was challenged. Indeed, we are being asked to confirm the administration's chief architect of its legal policies in the war on terror--policies with questionable legal support that have proven harmful to the conduct of the war and injured our reputation abroad. We must expect more from our Attorney General. The war on terrorism has proven more clearly now than ever before that the Justice Department's mission is too central to our democracy to be entrusted to someone who leaves us with such doubt. As the President's chief legal officer in the White House, Judge Gonzales's advice sadly fell short time and again. For these reasons, I must vote no. A closer examination of the administration's legal policies demonstrates why we have reached this conclusion. Over the strong objections of Secretary of State Powell, career military lawyers, and others with great expertise, Judge Gonzales advised the President to deny prisoners the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Others warned Judge Gonzales that this advice could undermine military culture, generate confusion about how to treat detainees, and ultimately lead to abuse. We now know that their worst fears were warranted. His role in shaping the policy on torture was similarly regrettable. The ``torture memo'' that was drafted at Judge Gonzales's request stood as administration policy for 2 years. The Defense Department used the memo's disturbing conclusions to justify abusive interrogation techniques. These policies have consequences. To defeat terrorism, the 9/11 Commission concluded that we must win the war of ideas in the Muslim world. The importance of this recommendation cannot be emphasized enough. Undermining our fundamental commitment to due process, failing to honor our international agreements, and flouting our laws prohibiting torture and war crimes harms that effort. Judge Gonzales's performance at the hearing did little to alleviate our concerns. We heard him condemn torture, generally, but refuse to discuss what he thought constituted torture. We heard him commit to honor our international agreements but waffle when asked when they apply. We heard him denounce the abuses that were committed in Iraq but refuse to discuss whether they might be illegal. We heard him commit to hold anyone involved responsible for their actions but repeat predetermined conclusions about what happened and who was to blame. When asked by members of the Judiciary Committee about his views on these policies and his roll in shaping them, Judge Gonzales either could not remember or was nonresponsive. When asked about whether he thought torture was ever productive, after more than 2 years of participating in discussions on the subject, he told the Committee, ``I have no way of forming an opinion on that.'' He admits to attending meetings where specific methods of torture were discussed but told the committee that he cannot recall anything that was said. His evasiveness was not an encouraging preview or his ability to be candid with the American people about the basis of the decisions he will be responsible for making as our Attorney General. This has not been an easy decision to reach. We hope that if Judge Gonzales is confirmed, he will prove us wrong. For now, however, our doubts are too great to support his nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be casting my vote in support of the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as our next Secretary of State. Dr. Rice currently serves as President Bush's National Security Advisor. In that position, she has earned the trust and the confidence of the President. Her stellar credentials and her remarkable success story, despite the barriers of segregation in Birmingham, AL, are an inspiration. Dr. Rice will assume the job of our Nation's top diplomat not only during a time of war but also during a time in which the United States faces countless other challenges. In short, Dr. Rice will have her work cut out for her. As she noted in her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ``We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now.'' Indeed. The extent to which we have alienated our allies and aroused suspicion about our policies is breathtaking in contrast to the tremendous support and sympathy we experienced in the aftermath of 9/11. Even as we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into our efforts in the Middle East, there is much that needs to be done to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world and beyond. There are many lofty ideals which the President extolled in his inaugural address--democracy and freedom, liberty for all--these are ideals we all share. Our Secretary of State must recognize, however, that ideals are meaningless if they do not inform the specifics of our policies. Where we must work to find common ground is in how to realize these ideals. I look forward to working with the next Secretary of State as we craft the State Department's budget and as we strive for a foreign policy we can all embrace.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I'm introducing a bill today that is aimed at helping rural communities build or improve essential community facilities such as shelters, nursing homes, hospitals, medical clinics, and fire and rescue-type projects. My bill would make it possible for project sponsors to accept certain USDA loan guarantees without risking the tax exempt status that enables them to finance these initiatives. Clarification of existing tax rules, as proposed in this bill, will provide certainty for project sponsors, help lower project costs for rural communities, and help deal with a backlog of loan applications for small communities. The needs are great in many rural communities. This measure will help communities help themselves and I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee on this important topic. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley, Hatch, Carper, and many others in introducing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation addresses the continuing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange consumers across America. The time for this bill has come. We have worked together on a bipartisan basis on this legislation in past Congresses. In fact, versions of this bill have passed the House of Representatives on two occasions in the past. In the Senate, we passed this bill through the Judiciary Committee in each of the last two Congresses and came within one vote of gaining cloture on the bill. We worked successfully to substantially improve this bill during the last Congress. As a result of the interest of Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Schumer and Landrieu, we have changed the bill in important ways. Now, only cases that are truly national in scope will be tried primarily in the Federal courts. Cases that primarily involve people from only one State and that interpret State law will remain in State court. These changes will ensure that class action cases are handled efficiently and in the appropriate venues and that no case that has merit will be turned away. We have a simple story to tell. Consumers are too often getting the short end of the stick in class action cases, recovering coupons or pocket change, while their lawyers reap millions. Many of these complex class action cases proceed exactly as we would hope. Injured parties, represented by strong advocates, get their day in court or reach a positive settlement that is good for the parties and handled well by their attorney. Unfortunately, this is not how it always works. Rather, more and more frequently, some are taking advantage of the system and, as a result, consumers are getting the short end of the stick, recovering coupons or pocket change, while the real reward is going to others. The Washington Post put it clearly, ``no portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class actions.'' Our remedy is straightforward. Consumers deserve notices that are written in plain English so they can understand their rights and responsibilities in the lawsuit. Too many of the class action notices are designed to be impossible to comprehend. Further, if the cases are settled, the notice to the class members must clearly describe the terms of the settlement, the benefits to each plaintiff and a summary of the attorneys' fees in the case and how they were calculated. We are grateful that the Federal Judicial Conference has adopted our idea and has already begun to improve the notices provided to class action plaintiffs. Second, State attorneys general should be notified of proposed class action settlements to stop abusive cases if they want. This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a settlement is fair and to alert the court if they do not believe that it is. The Attorney General review is an extra layer of security for the plaintiffs and is designed to ensure that abusive settlements are not approved without a critical review by one or more experts. Third, a class action consumer bill of rights will help limit coupon or other unfair settlements. Finally, we allow many class action lawsuits to be removed to Federal court. This is only common sense. These are national cases affecting consumers in 50 States. If the court rules were being drafted today, these are exactly the types of cases which we would want and expect to be tried in Federal court. Stories of nightmare class action settlements that affect consumers around the country are all too frequent. For example, a suit against Blockbuster video yielded dollar off coupons for future video rentals for the plaintiffs while their attorneys collected $9.25 million. In California State court, a class of 40 million consumers received $13 rebates on their next purchase of a computer or monitor--in other words they had to purchase hundreds of dollars more of the defendants' product to redeem the coupons. In essence, the plaintiffs received nothing, while their attorneys took almost $6 million in legal fees. We could list many, many more examples, but let me discuss just one more case that is almost too strange to believe. I am speaking about the Bank of Boston class action suit and the outrageous case of Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI. She was an unnamed class member of a class action lawsuit against her mortgage company that ended in a settlement. The plaintiffs' lawyers were supposed to represent her. Instead, the settlement that they negotiated for her was a bad joke. She received $4 and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys pocketed $8 million. Yet, the huge sums her attorneys received were not the worst of the story. Soon after receiving her $4, Ms. Preston discovered that her lawyers took $80, 20 times her recovery, from her escrow account to help pay their fees. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the lawyers who quickly turned around and sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited, for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place. No one can argue with a straight face that the class action process is not in serious need of reform. Comprehensive studies support the anecdotes we have discussed. For example, a study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute demonstrates that class action cases are being brought disproportionately in a few counties where plaintiffs expect to be able to take advantage of lax certification rules. The study focused on three county courts--Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and Palm Beach County, FL--that have seen a steep rise in class action filings over the last several years that seems disproportional to their populations. They found that rural Madison County, IL, ranked third nationwide, after Los Angeles County, CA, and Cook County, IL, in the estimated number of class actions filed each year, whereas rural Jefferson County and Palm Beach County ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. As plaintiff attorneys found that Madison County was a welcoming host, the number of class action suits filed there rose 1,850 percent between 1998 and 2000. Another trend evident in the research was the use of ``cut-and- paste'' complaints in which plaintiffs'' attorneys file a number of suits against different defendants in the same industry challenging standard industry practices. For example, in one situation, six law firms filed nine nearly identical class actions in Madison County in the same week alleging that the automobile insurance industry is defrauding Americans in the way that they calculate claims rates for totaled vehicles. The system is not working as intended and needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to move more of these cases currently being brought in small State courts like Madison County, IL, to Federal court. The Federal courts are better venues for class actions for a variety of reasons articulated clearly in a RAND study. RAND proposed three primary explanations why these cases should be in Federal court. ``First, federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more strictly than state judges, and deny certification in situations where a state judge might grant it improperly. Second, state judges may not have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more appropriate that this take place in federal court than in state court.'' We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most State courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give back to regular people their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. We believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, very soon the administration is expected to send to Congress supplemental appropriation requests to address ongoing military needs in Iraq and the humanitarian crisis posed by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. My hope is that the administration will include adequate food aid funding in that supplemental proposal. Recent press reports suggest they may be moving in that direction. If, however, the administration's proposed supplemental fails to provide adequate food aid funding, it is my intention to offer an amendment that would essentially accomplish four things. First, my amendment would provide full funding to meet U.S. food aid commitments from the tsunami under PL-480 title II. Second, my amendment will replenish PL-480 title II development funds that help meet our ongoing development programs across the globe. Third, it will shore up PL-480 title I funds that have been used as a stop-gap measure to address the crisis. And finally, it will replenish the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, BEHT, so that our aid workers and development personnel can be assured of adequate resources to carry out their important lifesaving work in future crises. The tsunami brought images of destruction and human suffering on a scale that is hard for many of us to imagine. Americans responded with great generosity by committing unprecedented funds through private donations. Some $50 million, I am told, has been pledged through the American Red Cross alone. Federal workers and their cooperators in Washington and around the globe made an extraordinary effort to respond. Food resources that were prepositioned, and even some in transit, were shifted to address this crisis. For all their hard work and creativity, I commend them. What concerns me now, however, is how we proceed after the television networks scale back their coverage. Enormous need will remain even after the emergency is contained. It will be months, perhaps years, before rice paddies are desalinated, fishing boats are rebuilt and fishing nets are repaired. Self-sufficiency will not happen overnight. And while the people most directly affected by the tsunami are struggling to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency, the dire need for food aid continues in places such as Ethiopia and Sudan and many others. That is why I believe it is so critical that we reinforce our food aid capacity. In his inaugural address, the President spoke forcefully about ending tyranny and spreading democracy. Everyone shares those objectives. We also know that those objectives cannot be achieved solely by force or gesture politics. They demand a commitment to diplomacy and human compassion. Adequate funding for food aid is central to that process, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley, Hatch, Carper, and many others in introducing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation addresses the continuing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange consumers across America. The time for this bill has come. We have worked together on a bipartisan basis on this legislation in past Congresses. In fact, versions of this bill have passed the House of Representatives on two occasions in the past. In the Senate, we passed this bill through the Judiciary Committee in each of the last two Congresses and came within one vote of gaining cloture on the bill. We worked successfully to substantially improve this bill during the last Congress. As a result of the interest of Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Schumer and Landrieu, we have changed the bill in important ways. Now, only cases that are truly national in scope will be tried primarily in the Federal courts. Cases that primarily involve people from only one State and that interpret State law will remain in State court. These changes will ensure that class action cases are handled efficiently and in the appropriate venues and that no case that has merit will be turned away. We have a simple story to tell. Consumers are too often getting the short end of the stick in class action cases, recovering coupons or pocket change, while their lawyers reap millions. Many of these complex class action cases proceed exactly as we would hope. Injured parties, represented by strong advocates, get their day in court or reach a positive settlement that is good for the parties and handled well by their attorney. Unfortunately, this is not how it always works. Rather, more and more frequently, some are taking advantage of the system and, as a result, consumers are getting the short end of the stick, recovering coupons or pocket change, while the real reward is going to others. The Washington Post put it clearly, ``no portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class actions.'' Our remedy is straightforward. Consumers deserve notices that are written in plain English so they can understand their rights and responsibilities in the lawsuit. Too many of the class action notices are designed to be impossible to comprehend. Further, if the cases are settled, the notice to the class members must clearly describe the terms of the settlement, the benefits to each plaintiff and a summary of the attorneys' fees in the case and how they were calculated. We are grateful that the Federal Judicial Conference has adopted our idea and has already begun to improve the notices provided to class action plaintiffs. Second, State attorneys general should be notified of proposed class action settlements to stop abusive cases if they want. This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a settlement is fair and to alert the court if they do not believe that it is. The Attorney General review is an extra layer of security for the plaintiffs and is designed to ensure that abusive settlements are not approved without a critical review by one or more experts. Third, a class action consumer bill of rights will help limit coupon or other unfair settlements. Finally, we allow many class action lawsuits to be removed to Federal court. This is only common sense. These are national cases affecting consumers in 50 States. If the court rules were being drafted today, these are exactly the types of cases which we would want and expect to be tried in Federal court. Stories of nightmare class action settlements that affect consumers around the country are all too frequent. For example, a suit against Blockbuster video yielded dollar off coupons for future video rentals for the plaintiffs while their attorneys collected $9.25 million. In California State court, a class of 40 million consumers received $13 rebates on their next purchase of a computer or monitor--in other words they had to purchase hundreds of dollars more of the defendants' product to redeem the coupons. In essence, the plaintiffs received nothing, while their attorneys took almost $6 million in legal fees. We could list many, many more examples, but let me discuss just one more case that is almost too strange to believe. I am speaking about the Bank of Boston class action suit and the outrageous case of Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI. She was an unnamed class member of a class action lawsuit against her mortgage company that ended in a settlement. The plaintiffs' lawyers were supposed to represent her. Instead, the settlement that they negotiated for her was a bad joke. She received $4 and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys pocketed $8 million. Yet, the huge sums her attorneys received were not the worst of the story. Soon after receiving her $4, Ms. Preston discovered that her lawyers took $80, 20 times her recovery, from her escrow account to help pay their fees. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the lawyers who quickly turned around and sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited, for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place. No one can argue with a straight face that the class action process is not in serious need of reform. Comprehensive studies support the anecdotes we have discussed. For example, a study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute demonstrates that class action cases are being brought disproportionately in a few counties where plaintiffs expect to be able to take advantage of lax certification rules. The study focused on three county courts--Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and Palm Beach County, FL--that have seen a steep rise in class action filings over the last several years that seems disproportional to their populations. They found that rural Madison County, IL, ranked third nationwide, after Los Angeles County, CA, and Cook County, IL, in the estimated number of class actions filed each year, whereas rural Jefferson County and Palm Beach County ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. As plaintiff attorneys found that Madison County was a welcoming host, the number of class action suits filed there rose 1,850 percent between 1998 and 2000. Another trend evident in the research was the use of ``cut-and- paste'' complaints in which plaintiffs'' attorneys file a number of suits against different defendants in the same industry challenging standard industry practices. For example, in one situation, six law firms filed nine nearly identical class actions in Madison County in the same week alleging that the automobile insurance industry is defrauding Americans in the way that they calculate claims rates for totaled vehicles. The system is not working as intended and needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to move more of these cases currently being brought in small State courts like Madison County, IL, to Federal court. The Federal courts are better venues for class actions for a variety of reasons articulated clearly in a RAND study. RAND proposed three primary explanations why these cases should be in Federal court. ``First, federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more strictly than state judges, and deny certification in situations where a state judge might grant it improperly. Second, state judges may not have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more appropriate that this take place in federal court than in state court.'' We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most State courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give back to regular people their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. We believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I'm introducing a bill today that is aimed at helping rural communities build or improve essential community facilities such as shelters, nursing homes, hospitals, medical clinics, and fire and rescue-type projects. My bill would make it possible for project sponsors to accept certain USDA loan guarantees without risking the tax exempt status that enables them to finance these initiatives. Clarification of existing tax rules, as proposed in this bill, will provide certainty for project sponsors, help lower project costs for rural communities, and help deal with a backlog of loan applications for small communities. The needs are great in many rural communities. This measure will help communities help themselves and I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee on this important topic. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. This legislation is virtually identical to legislation that I first proposed in 1997 in the 105th Congress and most recently reintroduced in the 107th Congress. The last two elections have revealed a glaring need for us to rethink how we conduct elections in our Nation. The 2000 election galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help American Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important step forward in establishing minimum standards for states in the administration of federal elections and in providing funds to replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration. The HAVA legislation also created a new federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission, to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration information. That Commission is finally on its feet after a delayed start. However, as the 2004 election made clear, there is much that still needs to be done. With more and more voters needing to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one election day. Twenty-six States, including my own state of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. These States constitute 45 percent of the voting age citizens of the United States. Twenty three states permit in-person early voting at election offices or at other satellite locations. The state of Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that a nation of 294 million people can line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. And if we continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting. That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first weekend in November. Holding our federal elections on a weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to undermine our elections. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open from Saturday to Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances. Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter participation rates. Closer to home, weekend voting in some California counties resulted in increased voter turnout compared to comparable elections held on Tuesdays. In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended that we move our federal election day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land- owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. Sixty percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we saw in this last election, long lines in many polling places kept some waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reexamine how our Nation votes. In the last election, too many Americans had to confront a variety of obstacles to cast their ballots at their local polling places. We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for Americans, especially working families. Serious allegations have been raised about voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. I agree with many of my colleagues that these allegations must be investigated to the fullest extent possible because every eligible citizen in this nation must have an equal opportunity to exercise the constitutional right to cast a vote in federal elections. In the meantime, we have an obligation to do more than investigate. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the integrity of future elections--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a common sense proposal whose time has come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Weekend Voting Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of Mike Johanns to be Secretary of Agriculture and look forward to working with him in my capacity as the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. We will have occasion to work together on many different topics in the months to come. One topic of particular interest to me is the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program. This counter-cyclical support program was included in the 2002 farm bill and provides critical safety net for America's dairymen. In 2002 and the first half of 2003, dairy prices reached 25-year lows. During that time, the MILC program provided dairy producers with much, needed assistance. It helped to preserve the productive capacity of Wisconsin's dairy farms and stemmed the tide of losses that dairy farmers had experienced in previous periods of price downturn. Unfortunately, the MILC program is scheduled to expire in September 2005, 2 years earlier than the rest of the farm bill commodity programs. I believe that is unacceptable and will be joining soon with a bipartisan, multiregional coalition of Senate colleagues to introduce legislation that would extend the MILC program. I ask unanimous consent that a letter that several of my colleagues and I recently sent to the President on this topic be printed in the Record. I look forward to working with Secretary Johanns on this issue in the months to come.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, serious allegations have been raised about voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. I agree with many of my colleagues that these allegations must be investigated to the fullest extent possible because every eligible citizen in this nation must have an equal opportunity to exercise the constitutional right to cast a vote in Federal elections. That said, I do not believe there is anything to be gained by sustaining the objection to the ballot certification with regard to the state of Ohio. Senator John Kerry has already conceded the election and there are no pending investigations that will result in sufficient votes being changed so as to alter the outcome of this election. However, the last two elections have revealed a glaring need for us to rethink how we conduct elections in our Nation. With more and more voters needing to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one election day. Twenty-six states, including my own state of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. Twenty three states permit in-person early voting at election offices or at other satellite locations. The state of Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that a nation of 294 million people can line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. And if we continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting. That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our federal election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first weekend in November. Holding our federal elections on a weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to undermine our elections. I look forward to introducing legislation to this end in the 109th Congress and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I recognize the fundraising efforts of the National Funeral Directors Association NFDA. The NFDA is the largest funeral service organization in the world and is dedicated to funeral service professionalism and quality. The recent tsunami tragedy in South Asia has created a desperate need for monetary donations to charitable organizations participating in the relief effort. In a direct response to President Bush's nationwide appeal to assist tsunami victims, the NFDA has established the Funeral Service Asian Relief Fund. The NFDA has asked its members, funeral service suppliers, and domestic and international allied organizations to contribute to this endeavor. All contributions will be directed to an appropriate charitable organization. The generosity and caring of the funeral service industry was demonstrated during past humanitarian crises such as the September 11th terrorist attack and the Oklahoma City bombing. This new effort further proves the commitment of the NFDA to utilizing its resources for the benefit of those experiencing great hardship. I commend the charity of the members of the National Funeral Directors Association during this time of need in South Asia.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that in one of the final acts of this Congress we have overcome the objections of the House leadership to pass a major intelligence reform bill. The 9/11 Commission report provided a unique opportunity for Congress to act. If we had allowed this moment to pass and we had not succeeded in enacting the Commission's reforms, it is unlikely that we would ever achieve effective intelligence reform, leaving us right where we started--with a fragmented counterterrorism infrastructure struggling to keep up with the terrorist threats of tomorrow. The legislation before us creates a Director of National Intelligence who will have broad authority over the many elements of our intelligence community. While many of us were confident that the Senate bill did not jeopardize the chain of command, language was added to ensure that the military would have access to the intelligence it needs. In addition to creating a National Counterterrorism Center to coordinate counterterrorism intelligence and missions, the bill includes important provisions strengthening FBI intelligence capabilities, transportation security, border protection, and diplomatic and military efforts in the war on terrorism. We cannot rely on intelligence alone to prevent the catastrophic terrorist attacks of the future. We must remain vigilant in all these areas. Finally, I want to applaud the diligence of our colleagues and the members of the 9/11 Commission who pressed on when it seemed that this bill was doomed to die. While I have no illusions that this bill will suddenly make us invincible, it is critical that we begin the difficult process of realigning the way our government anticipates and responds to terrorism. That is why I intend to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I express my support for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act conference report that passed the Senate yesterday. It is not a perfect bill, but I believe it represents a fair balance of the concerns of schools and parents of children with disabilities. Above all, it upholds the rights of all children with disabilities to a free, appropriate education in our public schools. It promises them access to a high quality education to help them succeed and live productive lives. And it includes strong monitoring and enforcement provisions to ensure that that promise is kept. The bill includes several improvements over current law that will help secure the rights of children with disabilities and uphold the rights of parents advocating for their children. First, it holds schools accountable for educating disabled students by giving the Secretary of Education the tools to monitor how well States and schools are complying with the law and sanctioning those that fail to serve disabled students. It provides flexibility and resources for early intervention and preschool services for younger children, and promotes transition services for older students in order to prepare for their post-school years. It preserves the Individualized Education Programs to ensure that parents have quarterly reports of their child's progress and short-term objectives for those with the most severe disabilities. It provides for more teacher training and strengthens teacher quality requirements so that students are taught by highly qualified teachers. It also adds options for parents and schools to work together to resolve disputes, but preserves the right to due process if a school is out of compliance. At the same time, this bill also responds to many of the concerns raised by schools and teachers. It provides relief from unnecessary and burdensome paperwork so that teachers can focus their attention on educational services. It provides more opportunities to resolve conflicts and disagreements other than through costly and acrimonious litigation. And it provides more resources for professional development so teachers are equipped to deal with the often complex but critical needs of students with disabilities. This bill also addresses the serious issue of discipline--an issue that has caused many concerns over the years by both education officials and parents of children with disabilities. The bill includes a bipartisan compromise that clarifies and strengthens discipline provisions so that schools can remove children who pose a serious danger to themselves or others to an alternative setting, while ensuring that those children continue to receive services. At the same time, this compromise protects the rights of disabled children in disciplinary action by preserving the manifestation determination so that children are not punished for behavior caused by their disability, and continuing services if a child is placed in an alternative setting. I know that some parents are worried about these revised discipline provisions and would prefer current law. I agree that we must continue to monitor these provisions carefully to ensure they are implemented fairly and with the best interests of disabled children in mind. Despite these positive features, I am very disappointed that this bill does not move us any closer to fully funding IDEA. When IDEA was first enacted in 1975, Congress made a commitment to fund 40 percent of the costs, in recognition of the added expenses schools would incur in serving disabled students. Today, the Federal Government is funding IDEA at the highest levels since it was created--but sadly, that funding only covers approximately 19 percent of the costs. I have cosponsored and supported legislation that would require mandatory full funding for IDEA, and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for full funding of IDEA. It is past time for the Federal Government to live up to its obligations. The conference report is not a perfect bill. Clearly, there are provisions that will trouble both sides--both the educational community and the families of disabled children. But on balance, I think the bill represents a real compromise and has great potential to lead to improved educational services for children with disabilities. It attempts to create a balanced approach that recognizes the challenges faced by teachers and schools, while still ensuring that all children with disabilities have access to the highest quality education. I will continue to work to fully fund its provisions so that the promises it makes will become a reality. This bill is worthy of the Senate's support and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Omnibus appropriations bill. I think the American people would be appalled by the process under which the Senate is considering this bill. Provisions have been added that have never been debated, never had a hearing, and never had a vote in the Senate. It is thousands of pages long, and yet the Senate has had only a few hours to read the bill. We are just beginning to learn about all of the provisions that have been added. Already, we have learned about an outrageous provision that would allow for a complete reversal of longstanding privacy protections. The bill contains a provision that allows Appropriations Committee chairman, or their designees, to review the tax returns of any American citizen. Any individual, any corporation could have their very private information poured over by any number of people. Not only would the private, sensitive tax information be available to the Chairmen and their staffs--they would be able to distribute that information without incurring any penalties. This egregious ``oversight'' is inexcusable. That a provision with this impact, on both privacy rules and on powers of the Senate, would be slipped in at the midnight hour with no oversight, is an offense to every Member of the Senate and most importantly, to the American people. While I am relieved that promises have been made to remove this egregious provision, this is just an example of the danger that comes with rushing a bill like this through the Senate. This is simply indefensible. The American people deserve a more serious effort, and I cannot support a bill that has been rushed through in this manner. I am also troubled by much of what we already know about this bill. This bill demonstrates that the budget deficit our Nation is facing today is causing real cuts in important programs and real pain for working families. These tight budget numbers are the consequence of a fiscal policy that puts reckless and expensive tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country above all other priorities. That policy has left us with huge deficits and the inability to fully fund some of our Nation's most pressing needs--needs like education, health care, law enforcement and housing. Clearly, we need to take another look at our Nation's fiscal policy and finally put together a budget plan that meet the needs of American families. The Omnibus appropriations bill before us simply falls short on too many of our priorities. I recognize that it includes a $500 million increase for the title I education program for disadvantaged students and a $607 million increase for special education. I am grateful that increases were provided during these difficult times but let's not forget that even with these increases, funding for No Child Left Behind is still far below the levels authorized when the law passed. We are still not coming anywhere close to our commitment to fund 40 percent of the costs of special education. And once again, the maximum Pell Grant award has been frozen leaving more students with higher student loan debts or shut out of higher education altogether. These are just a few examples. I believe we should be able to do better when it comes to our Nation's students and schools. In addition, I am very disappointed with the practical elimination of the COPS Universal Hiring program. The Omnibus appropriations bill allocates a paltry $10 million for this nationwide program--a program that has added tens of thousands of police officers to police departments across the country. Not surprisingly, the COPS program has been overwhelmingly popular among our local police departments in Wisconsin and beyond. Moreover, crime has been steadily decreasing in the past decade thanks in part to the COPS program. A mere $10 million is not enough for a program that received more than $300 million just a few years ago. Quite simply, this appropriations bill demonstrates an insensitivity to the needs of our police officers who are also the first line of defense in the war on terror. This Omnibus bill also contains inadequate support for energy saving research. One of the programs that I was disappointed did not receive sufficient funding in this bill was the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies program. This program is an important effort to invest in our manufacturing base by increasing energy efficiency. This program invests in research to improve industrial energy efficiency and environmental performance in eight basic, energy intensive industries named by DoE as Industries of the Future: aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting, mining, petroleum and steel. An example of such a program in Wisconsin that is applicable to all eight DOE Industries of the Future in Wisconsin is the project ``Wireless Sensor Network for Advanced Energy Management Solutions'' which applies advanced communications and sensors technology to industrial motors. The projected benefits from this program in 2020 include energy savings of 279 trillion Btus, $1.3 billion and 116 million pounds of pollutant reduction. It is my hope that DOE reconsider this very important technology development and that the Interior Appropriations subcommittee focus next year on this program because of the impact it will have on our manufacturing capabilities in the United States. I am also very concerned about the across-the-board cut that is included in this bill. The bill includes a cut of 0.83 percent that will apply to every program. That means the increases some programs received will be scaled back, and those programs that received flat funding will actually get a cut from last year's levels after the across-the-board reduction goes into effect. I am particularly disappointed that this bill fails to address one critical area that is very important to me regarding dairy. As I have stated many times before on the floor of the Senate, dairy is an extremely important part of the economy of the Upper Midwest. For Wisconsin alone, employment associated with dairy farming, processing and related activities is estimated to be about 160,000, generating roughly $5 billion in income annually. During the 2002 farm bill, a new dairy program was created, called the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program, to provide countercyclical assistance to all dairy farmers in the nation, whenever market prices for milk fall below certain trigger levels. The program provides assistance in the form of direct payments to producers, up to the first 2.4 million pounds of production annually, when market prices are low. While the MILC program uses the market as a reference price to trigger assistance, it does not directly intervene into the market. In 2002 and the first half of 2003, dairy prices reached 25-year lows. During that time, the MILC program provided dairy producers with much needed assistance. Wisconsin dairy producers have received $413 million in assistance under the program to date. Without a doubt, dairy producers prefer to receive their income from the marketplace. Fortunately, milk prices have recovered over the last year, and as a result, the MILC program is now dormant. However, the safety net provided by the MILC program has been extremely helpful, particularly during times of low market prices. Unfortunately, the MILC program is scheduled to expire in September of 2005, 2 years earlier than the rest of the farm bill commodity programs. Recognizing this problem, a bipartisan, multiregional coalition of Senators sought to remedy the situation during this year's appropriations process by extending the MILC program for 2 more years. Such an extension would put the MILC program on equal footing with other farm bill commodity programs. On October 7, the President of the United States personally entered the debate on MILC extension. He traveled to Wisconsin to voice his support for the MILC program and before a group of Wisconsin dairy families stated: I know that the Milk Income Lost Contract Program is important to the dairy farmers here in Wisconsin. The milk program is set to expire next fall. I look forward to working with Congress to reauthorize the program so Wisconsin dairy farmers and dairy farmers all across this country can count on the support they need. Our effort to extend the MILC program was also endorsed by a bipartisan, multiregional group of Governors. I ask unanimous consent that the Governors' letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Our MILC extension was adopted twice by Senate conferees on appropriations measures, and each time it was shot down by House negotiators. Notwithstanding assurances of executive support and gubernatorial support, House Republican negotiators thwarted our efforts to include MILC extension in the various appropriations measures. I am extremely disappointed they did so. One can reasonably assume, given the President's assurances in Wausau, WI, that MILC extension will be a part of his budget submission next year. While that is welcome, I caution my fellow MILC supporters and dairy farmers all across the nation to take that eventual development with a grain of salt. Budget resolutions themselves are not enacted into law. They form a blueprint for subsequent Congressional action. Putting MILC in the President's budget, by itself, won't get the job done. It will take concerted and cooperative effort on both sides of the capitol to extend the MILC program. Despite the serious problems I have noted above, it is worth mentioning several positive things in this bill that are of importance to my State, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member, Senators Stevens and Byrd, for working to accommodate my priorities. First, I am pleased that juvenile justice programs fared much better than the President's original budget request. In that proposal, juvenile justice programs--which fund afterschool and other juvenile crime prevention programs, intervention initiatives that work to redirect troubled teens, youth mentoring programs, substance abuse prevention and education projects, and programs that help keep kids out of gangs--received just under $200 million. Through our work with Senators Gregg and Hollings throughout the year, we have been able to increase that number to $384 million in this appropriations bill and I thank my colleagues for their support and cooperation. Though encouraging, we must remember that juvenile justice programs and our children deserve more funding than that. Just three years ago, these programs received roughly $550 million. Dollars spent on juvenile crime prevention is a wise investment. We can and must do better. I am also grateful for the efforts of Senators Specter and Harkin in working so hard to accomodate my State's needs for additional funding for Hmong refugees. The U.S. Government announced in December, 2003, that 15,000 Hmong refugees living in Thailand would be resettled in our country, primarily in Wisconsin, Minnesota and California. The resources provided in this bill will provide job training, health care, education and other support services and help our communities assist them with their basic needs. I know it was very difficult to find scarce resources in this tight budget, and I greatly appreciate the hard work of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin to meet this need. The bill before us also makes progress in meeting the need to provide assistance for low-income people trying to pay their rising heating bills. Funding for LIHEAP has been seriously underfunded coming into the heating season. As the prices of heating oil and natural gas continue to go up, an economic disaster was around the corner for many working families. While this bill did not provide the entire $600 million in emergency funds that many of my colleagues and I thought was necessary, it did provide $300 million. This additional funding raises to $2.2 billion the amount of regular and emergency funding available to help families meet there energy needs. In my state of Wisconsin, this account is crucial to helping the disadvantaged make it through the long winter. In addition, one of my top priorities this year has been to restore full funding for the Commerce Department's Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, so I am especially pleased that we have been able to provide a total of $109 million for this vital program, a dramatic increase above the fiscal year 2004 funding of $39 million and a $3 million increase above funding in fiscal year 2003. Wisconsin is one of the most manufacturing-dependent States in the Nation, second only to Indiana, and this budget will be able to support the Wisconsin Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, the two MEP centers in my State. MEP provides critical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers throughout the Nation. It is one of the only Federal programs which exists to help manufacturers maintain their technological edge and thus, retain jobs. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2004 budget and the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request included deep cuts to the program leading to the firing of staff and the closing of local offices around the country. While we were able to get the Commerce Department to reprogram some funding at the end of fiscal year 2004 to stave off further cuts, it was essential that we put this program back on track for fiscal year 2005. In addition, I am pleased we have added bipartisan legislation to the Omnibus that will extend the benefits of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act for another five years. We needed to act quickly to extend some sections of the satellite law we passed in 1999 because they were set to expire this year. To be sure, compromises were made to achieve this goal. But, we feel a deal was struck that is fair to all parties--consumers, satellite companies, and broadcasters alike. Let me discuss how this bill will further spur competition between cable and satellite, which in turn will benefit consumers. Our bill will allow satellite companies to retransmit ``significantly viewed'' stations into local markets on a royalty-free basis. Cable companies have enjoyed this privilege for years, and it is time to extend this right to the satellite industry. By doing so, satellite companies will be able to craft a local channel line-up more similar to what cable currently offers. Furthermore, through working with my colleagues, particularly Senator Hatch, we were able to assist low power TV stations, like Channel 41 in Milwaukee, carry valuable local programming and sports broadcasts that other stations do not carry. Satellite television consumers in southeastern Wisconsin and around the country will benefit from more local programs and more choices. It represents a tremendous win for consumers and local sports fans. Simply, we extended a statutory license to low power TV stations in the same way those stations receive that privilege in the cable world. This is an important pro-consumer measure that we are able to successfully include in the Omnibus. Finally, this bill includes funding for many important programs that will improve the lives of people in Wisconsin. Projects that provide job training, health care and dental care to uninsured families, afterschool programs, mental health services, caregiver training, transportation, crime prevention and economic development--all of these programs will have a real benefit for families and communities in my State. I am grateful for the hard work of the committee in accomodating these Wisconsin priorities. As ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, I would also like to make a few remarks about what is included in Division A of the bill, providing fiscal year 2005 appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Bennett who has now completed his second year as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee. In the period he has served as our chairman, his grasp of the policies, programs, and problems related to this subcommittee's jurisdiction has been outstanding. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with him, and I look forward to our continuing partnership next year. Again this year the resources available to the Agriculture Subcommittee have witnessed a decrease from the previous year. Yet in spite of those constraints, Chairman Bennett was able to provide some important increases to benefit American consumers and those who live and work in our rural areas. This conference report includes more than $5 billion for the WIC program. This amount is significantly higher than the fiscal year 2004 level or that of either the House or Senate bills. This appropriation will help meet caseload requirements for the coming year in spite of higher than expected food costs and participation rates. This conference report includes new funding for a number of plant and animal disease problems including research for soybean rust, mad cow disease, avian influenza and a number of other emerging issues. More than $33 million is provided to establish a national animal identification program, as is funding related to conservation, rural development, food and drug safety, and more. However, I must mention concerns I have with this conference report. I am concerned about reductions in the rural water and wastewater programs. Further, although the Public Law 480 title II program is funded at near the Senate level, worsening conditions around the world and the administration's reluctance to use the Emerson Humanitarian Trust, worries me that international food assistance may fall short and our contributions to humanitarian relief around the world may go wanting. I also feel it is important to mention a growing, and unfortunate, practice on which this subcommittee has had to rely again this year. In order to achieve the funding levels for discretionary programs that we have in this conference report, serious reductions or rescissions in other programs had to be realized. This is not a wholly new occurrence. For many years, this subcommittee has effected limitations on a number of mandatory programs, notably those funded through various farm bills, in order to meet discretionary targets. However, due to a strangling of resources provided to this subcommittee in discretionary allocations, reductions in mandatory programs are becoming more and more severe. My grave fear is if discretionary constraints continue at the rate we have seen the past couple of years, we will hit the limit on savings we can achieve and there will be nothing left to rescind. If and when that happens, the demands for carrying out farm programs, protecting American consumers, ensuring food and drug safety, keeping our environment clean, providing basic services for rural families, and meeting new challenges such as mad cow disease, soybean rust and all the rest will not diminish and we will simply not be able to provide what is necessary. On that day, we, and all of America, will be standing in the middle of a very tragic train wreck and we will all be asking each other how and why we let this happen. I hope that before that day comes, we will be able once again to have the resources necessary to meet the demands we were given the trust to overcome. Having said that, I do want to praise the work of Chairman Bennett. With the limitations I have just outlined, he has crafted a very balanced bill that will serve America well. He has done an outstanding job with limited resources and we should all be very proud of him for that. I also want to recognize the majority staff who has worked so well with mine on putting this conference report together. I would like to mention Fitzhugh Elder, Hunter Moorhead, and Dianne Preece. I especially want to recognize the majority clerk, Pat Raymond, for her outstanding service, not just to his subcommittee, but to the Senate overall. I want to note that Pat will be leaving the Senate after the first of the year and we will all miss her and wish her well. I would also like to recognize Galen Fountain, Jessica Arden, Bill Simpson, Tom Gonzales and Meagan McCarthy of the minority staff and Phil Karsting of my personal staff for all their hard work on this bill. While I am pleased that the Omnibus appropriations bill includes many of my priorities, on balance, I cannot support it. First, this bill shortchanges too many of our nation's most important priorities. This Nation's fiscal policy throughout the last several years has led to large and irresponsible deficits, and as a result, we are facing an appropriations bill that is unable to meet some of the most pressing needs of our families and communities. Finally, I cannot support this bill because the process by which it was put together and rushed through the Senate has been unacceptable. It is three thousand pages long and we have had only a matter of hours to review it. We have already learned about an egregious provision that would infringe on the privacy of Americans' tax returns, and as we have more time to review the bill, it is likely we will find more troubling provisions. I hope that this unfortunate process will not be repeated in the future. People in Wisconsin and across the Nation expect a more serious effort from the Senate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I honor the long and dedicated service that Tom Daschle has given to our country. He has been a true leader throughout his life in public service, and South Dakota and the entire Nation are better off because of his efforts. For 29 years, South Dakota has been fortunate to have Tom Daschle represent their interests--first as a Senate staffer, then as a Member of the House of Representatives, and finally as a United States Senator. He has worked tirelessly to make sure that the people of South Dakota have a strong economy, access to quality, affordable health care, and the highest quality education system. He has worked with unfailing determination to enchance the quality of life in rural communities across South Dakota and the Nation. Throughout his service, Tom has always kept the interests of his State and his constituents as his top priority. Tom Daschle has been a wonderful leader for South Dakota, for the Democratic party, and for all Americans. I deeply respect and applaud his lifelong commitment to public service, and his leadership and his friendship will be missed by many in the Senate. I know he moves on to the next phase of his career as a happy and wise man who will continue to make important contributions to our country long after he leaves the Senate. He is a true patriot who has always served and will always serve his country. I want to thank Tom for his dedication and his service, and I wish him the very best in his future endeavors. tom daschle