Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I would like to honor Senator Barbara Mikulski's amazing life and career as she becomes the Senate's longest serving woman Senator. She has been a role model and inspiration to women across the country as she broke barriers in public life. When she first came to the Senate she was one of only a handful of women ever to serve in the U.S. Senate and now she is one of 17 women here on the Senate floor. Her service has made it easier for girls to dream about one day being a Senator--or President. Senator Mikulski and I shared a similar experience growing up: her parents, William and Christine, opened and operated Willy's Market, a small grocery store in their working class neighborhood in East Baltimore. My parents also opened a small grocery store in Milwaukee-- the first of what would become the Kohl's Food Stores and then Kohl's Department Stores. As we have already heard here on the floor, her father would frequently open the store early so local steel workers could buy their lunches before their shift began. He would also extend credit to help customers who were having a hard time making ends meet. William Mikulski's neighbors didn't go hungry with him as their grocer. Barbara worked at the store, and helped deliver groceries to homebound seniors in their neighborhood. She got to know her neighbors well, and she understood the important issues facing her community. Much of what we both experienced working in our family stores and watching our parents work so hard to provide superior service to their customers, ensuring their children understood the value of hard work, treating others fairly and with dignity, and giving back to the community, influenced our views on customer service. Those views have translated into Senator Mikulski's constituent service here in the Senate. Barbara's enthusiasm and commitment to serving the people of Maryland has resulted in too many victories to mention here, but I do want to point out a few of the projects we have worked on together on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee. Senator Mikulski and I have worked closely over the years to protect USDA agriculture research in Beltsville, MD. Beltsville is a historic and crucial part of the USDA's research arm. In fact it is the largest agriculture research facility in the world and does valuable work developing the next generation of crops and farming methods that will feed a growing planet. We've also worked together on increasing funding for the Food and Drug Administration, ensuring that the food we eat and medicine we rely upon is safe. In my work as the chairman of Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, I have been especially thankful for the times when Barbara has spoken passionately about the important programs we fund through the subcommittee. She has been a stalwart supporter of farmers throughout Maryland and across the country, and a true friend here in the Senate. It has been an honor to serve with her.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take time to recognize Robin A. Douthitt, who is stepping down as dean of the School of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I would also like to wish her a happy birthday. As a proud alumnus of UW-Madison, it is an honor to congratulate Dean Douthitt on her outstanding and exemplary service at UW over the years. For the past 12 years, Dean Douthitt has given her unwavering commitment to students, faculty, staff, campus, the community, and the State. She began as a professor in the Consumer Science Department, was appointed interim dean of the School of Human Ecology in 1999, and was named dean in 2001. She will be leaving a legacy of courage and visionary leadership. Dean Douthitt has been called the ``People's Dean'' because she is always approachable and has touched the lives of many of her colleagues and friends. Dean Douthitt made countless contributions to the University of Wisconsin during her service. She founded the UW Women's Faculty Mentoring Program that has led to the university's retention of female faculty and has become a model for other universities. She helped establish the Nancy Denney House, a cooperative undergraduate residence for single parents and their children. In recognition of her teaching and publishing extensive research on women's unpaid work and its social value, Dean Douthitt has been named a Vaughan Bascom Professor of Women and Philanthropy and a Vilas Associate in the Social Sciences. Her contributions at UW do not stop there. Dean Douthitt served on the UW Athletic Board, chairing its Academic Affairs Committee, and representing UW faculty to the Big Ten. She has been honored on the School of Human Ecology's Roster of 100 Women--Wall of Honor, in recognition of her contributions to family, community, and her embodiment of the school's mission to improve the quality of human life. In addition, Dean Douthitt provided vision in leading a successful $52 million effort to renovate the School of Human Ecology's historic 1914 building and build a new addition to ensure the school's continued presence at the forefront of education, research, creative scholarship, and outreach in the 21st century. On behalf of my constituents from the great State of Wisconsin, we say a heartfelt thank you and happy birthday to Dean Robin A. Douthitt. We wish her all the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I would like to take time to recognize Robin A. Douthitt, who is stepping down as Dean of the School of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. I would also like to wish her a happy birthday. As a proud alumnus of UW--Madison, it is an honor to congratulate Dean Douthitt on her outstanding and exemplary service at UW over the years. For the past 12 years, Dean Douthitt has given her unwavering commitment to students, faculty, staff, campus, the community, and the State. She began as a professor in the Consumer Science Department, was appointed Interim Dean of the School of Human Ecology in 1999, and was named Dean in 2001. She will be leaving a legacy of courage and visionary leadership. Dean Douthitt has been called the ``People's Dean,'' because she is always approachable and has touched the lives of many of her colleagues and friends. Dean Douthitt made countless contributions to the University of Wisconsin during her service. She founded the UW Women's Faculty Mentoring Program that has led to the university's retention of female faculty and has become a model for other universities. She helped establish the Nancy Denney House, a cooperative undergraduate residence for single parents and their children. In recognition of her teaching and publishing extensive research on women's unpaid work and its social value, Dean Douthitt has been named a Vaughan Bascom Professor of Women and Philanthropy and a Vilas Associate in the Social Sciences. Her contributions at UW do not stop there. Dean Douthitt served on the UW Athletic Board, chairing its Academic Affairs Committee and representing UW faculty to the Big Ten. She has been honored on the School of Human Ecology's Roster of 100 Women--Wall of Honor, in recognition of her contributions to family, community, and her embodiment of the School's mission to improve the quality of human life. In addition, Dean Douthitt provided vision in leading a successful $52 million effort to renovate the School of Human Ecology's historic 1914 building and build a new addition to ensure the School's continued presence at the forefront of education, research, creative scholarship, and outreach in the 21st century. On behalf of my constituents from the great State of Wisconsin, we say a heartfelt thank you and happy birthday to Dean Robin A. Douthitt. We wish her all the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I wish today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Doug Nelson on his retirement as President and CEO of the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, ARCW. I am honored to have the opportunity to congratulate him on his extraordinary career and all that he has done to fight against AIDS. Under his leadership, Doug has helped ARCW provide support and care to countless individuals affected by HIV or AIDS. He has also brought awareness and advocacy to the forefront of the public sector and private philanthropy. The AIDS epidemic remains one of the leading public health threats facing our Nation and the world today. When I was first elected to the U.S. Senate, Doug took the helm as president and CEO of ARCW. Since then, I have looked to Doug for his suggestions, insight and wisdom on how we can work together to fight this disease, while providing assistance to those who have been diagnosed with AIDS or infected with HIV. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the Ryan White Care Act in 1990, as well as its reauthorization, which has provided millions of dollars for the State of Wisconsin's AIDS drug reimbursement program. It is also why I fought hard in the Senate to ensure that the Ryan White Extension Act of 2009 would continue to provide these services to those in need. Doug is a true agent of change. When he assumed his position as the second executive director, ARCW was among one of only a few small social service organizations committed to providing health care and support to individuals infected with HIV. Doug has played an integral role growing ARCW to become Wisconsin's largest provider of a broad range of medical, dental and mental health services for people living with HIV. Under his leadership, the ARCW Medical Center and pharmacy have provided thousands of individuals living with HIV and AIDS with the high quality medical care and support they need. Over the last 24 years, Doug Nelson and I have worked in our respective roles and together to fight an historic epidemic. It is through his years of leadership that I am proud to say our State has provided high-quality care and support to those who are affected by this disease. In his retirement, Doug will not only leave a legacy of remarkable achievement at ARCW, but an unyielding hope for a brighter future. I want to take this opportunity to formally recognize Doug's many years of remarkable service and, on behalf of the people of Wisconsin, offer him the sincere thanks and appreciation he so deeply deserves.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I wanted to speak today regarding a bill I am introducing to establish the Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway National Heritage Area. The Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway would cut diagonally across Wisconsin through parts of 15 counties following the Fox River from Green Bay to Portage and the Wisconsin River from Portage to the Mississippi River. This parkway marks the route taken in 1673 by explorers Father Jacques Marquette and Louis Joliet through Wisconsin. The Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway concept was created in 1991 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Wisconsin Department of Commerce with the purpose of highlighting and enhancing the unique heritage of the State of Wisconsin. The Fox and Wisconsin rivers that serve as the pathway of Wisconsin's first explorers will increase heritage and recreational tourism to sites within the 280 mile Parkway and create awareness of this region's contributions to United States history. A National Heritage Area designation would revitalize the Parkway as an economic, environmental and recreational resource and ensure it for future generations. This project has the strong support of local towns, cities, businesses and non-profits that are located within this proposed parkway. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on this National Heritage Area designation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I wanted to speak today regarding a bill I am introducing to establish the Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway National Heritage Area. The Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway would cut diagonally across Wisconsin through parts of 15 counties following the Fox River from Green Bay to Portage and the Wisconsin River from Portage to the Mississippi River. This parkway marks the route taken in 1673 by explorers Father Jacques Marquette and Louis Joliet through Wisconsin. The Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway concept was created in 1991 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Wisconsin Department of Commerce with the purpose of highlighting and enhancing the unique heritage of the State of Wisconsin. The Fox and Wisconsin rivers that serve as the pathway of Wisconsin's first explorers will increase heritage and recreational tourism to sites within the 280 mile Parkway and create awareness of this region's contributions to United States history. A National Heritage Area designation would revitalize the Parkway as an economic, environmental and recreational resource and ensure it for future generations. This project has the strong support of local towns, cities, businesses and non-profits that are located within this proposed parkway. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on this National Heritage Area designation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I come here today to speak about my amendment No. 1591, which is a bipartisan amendment to repeal the freight railroad industry's undeserved exemptions to the antitrust laws, exemptions that result in higher prices to hundreds of businesses and millions of consumers every day. These outmoded exemptions do damage to numerous industries across our country--industries that are vital to our economy and to the job market. From power companies that rely on coal shipped by rail, to farmers shipping grain, to chemical companies that rely on rail to transport raw materials, to paper companies that ship their finished products via rail, the railroad's antitrust exemption leads to higher prices and renders rail shippers at the mercy of rail monopolies engaged in anticompetitive practices. The railroads enjoy these antitrust immunities despite the industry's very high levels of concentration--with four freight railroads controlling nearly 90 percent of the market as measured by revenue and dividing up the country so that they face very little, if any, rail competition in many areas of our country. This amendment is very simple. Wherever the law provides freight railroads with an antitrust exemption, this amendment repeals it. In this way, the railroads will have to abide by the same rules of free competition as virtually every other industry. This amendment is identical to the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act, bipartisan legislation that has passed the Judiciary Committee by overwhelming margins in this Congress as well as in the past two. Virtually no industry--other than baseball and insurance--enjoys the sweeping nature of the antitrust exemptions as does the freight railroad industry. Yet, paradoxically, the consolidated nature of the freight railroad industry makes full application of antitrust law even more necessary. Just three decades ago there were more than 40 class I freight railroads in the United States. But today, after massive waves of consolidation, nearly 90 percent of industry revenues are controlled by just four railroads. Many areas of the country are served by only one, leaving their shippers captive to rate increases and anticompetitive measures. The effects of these antitrust exemptions protecting monopoly behavior are easy to see. Increased concentration, combined with a lack of antitrust scrutiny, have had clear price effects. A September 2010 staff report of the Senate Commerce Committee stated: The four Class I railroads that today dominate the U.S. rail shipping market are achieving returns on revenue and operating ratios that rank them among the most profitable businesses in the U.S. economy. Since 2004, this report found ``Class I railroads have been raising prices by an average of 5% a year above inflation.'' The four largest railroads nearly doubled their collective profit margins in the last decade to 13 percent, ranking the railroad industry the fifth most profitable industry as ranked by Fortune Magazine. A 2006 GAO report furthermore found that shippers in many geographical areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' Given the industry's concentration and pricing power, the case for full-fledged application of the antitrust laws is plain. It is more than just railroad shippers who pay the price of a railroad industry unchecked by antitrust oversight. These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, as well as higher food prices for everyone. Railroad monopoly conduct ripples through the economy, causing pain in countless corners of commerce. The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from antitrust scrutiny. Unlike virtually every other regulated industry, the Justice Department cannot bring suit to block anticompetitive mergers--a fact that has greatly aided the sharp industry consolidation I have already described. Private parties and State attorneys general cannot bring private antitrust lawsuits to obtain injunctive relief, leaving pernicious industry practices such as bottlenecks and paper barriers exempt from antitrust review. Railroad practices subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board are effectively immunized from antitrust remedies. Our amendment will eliminate these exemptions once and for all. Railroads will be fully subject to antitrust law and will have to play by the same rules of free competition that all other businesses do. The rail industry's widespread grant of antitrust exemptions has its origin decades ago when the industry was subject to extensive regulation by the long-ago abolished Interstate Commerce Commission. But no good reason exists today for these exemptions to continue. While railroad legislation in recent decades, including, most notably, the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, deregulated much railroad rate- setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. There is no reason to treat railroads any differently than dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust. When this amendment was filed a couple of weeks ago, the railroad industry responded by claiming this amendment ``goes way beyond antitrust laws and looks to create new regulatory law on matters unrelated to antitrust, and in so doing treats [railroads] differently than other regulated industries.'' These arguments are completely without merit. Nothing in this amendment goes ``way beyond antitrust law'' or ``looks to create new regulatory law.'' In fact, this amendment creates absolutely no new regulatory law whatsoever. It simply repeals all of the antitrust exemptions enjoyed by the freight railroad industry. This amendment would not treat railroads any differently than other regulated industries. The mere fact that an industry is regulated does not exempt it from antitrust law. Many other regulated industries, including the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC and the aviation and trucking industries regulated by the Department of Transportation, are fully subject to antitrust law. This amendment simply seeks to end the special exemption from antitrust law enjoyed by freight railroads--an exemption which is both wholly unwarranted and raises prices to shippers and consumers every day. Dozens of organizations and trade groups representing industries affected by monopolistic railroad conduct have endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act, which is identical to this amendment. Supporters of the legislation have included 20 State attorneys general in 2009; the leading trade associations for the electrical, agricultural, chemical, and paper industries; the National Industrial Transportation League; and the Nation's leading consumer groups. In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, this amendment will cause railroads to be subject to the same laws as the rest of our economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anticompetitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anticompetitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries. In the antitrust subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, and to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products, whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product, deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anticompetitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Military Leave Act. This legislation fixes a problem that is preventing some of our brave servicemembers from using benefits that they earned after serving multiple or extended deployments overseas. In 2007, the military established the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence Program, or PDMRA, to assist men and women who are ordered to deploy beyond the established standards for troop rotation by providing extra paid leave when they return home. Unfortunately, a mistake during demobilization prevented some soldiers from receiving the paid leave they earned. The Army's records indicate that this problem affects 577 soldiers across the country, including 80 in Wisconsin. These soldiers have since gotten their military records corrected to reflect the days of PDMRA leave they were supposed to receive. However, the only way for these soldiers to use this benefit is to take extra paid leave on a future deployment. For those soldiers who will not deploy again or who have left the military entirely, this remedy does not work. Mistakes happen, but they need to be fixed. The Fair Military Leave Act gives troops the option of cashing out the leave they were incorrectly denied when they came home. This solution is modeled after legislation Congress passed in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. As with that bill, the Fair Military Leave Act reimburses soldiers at a rate of $200 per day of PDMRA that they were incorrectly denied. I am pleased to have the senior Senator from Oregon join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. My friend from Oregon led the effort to fix the earlier problem with PDMRA benefits in the 2010 defense authorization. The men and women of our Armed Forces have done so much for our country, and we should not drag our feet in making this right. These troops earned their PDMRA benefit, and they should be allowed to use it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Military Leave Act. This legislation fixes a problem that is preventing some of our brave servicemembers from using benefits that they earned after serving multiple or extended deployments overseas. In 2007, the military established the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence Program, or PDMRA, to assist men and women who are ordered to deploy beyond the established standards for troop rotation by providing extra paid leave when they return home. Unfortunately, a mistake during demobilization prevented some soldiers from receiving the paid leave they earned. The Army's records indicate that this problem affects 577 soldiers across the country, including 80 in Wisconsin. These soldiers have since gotten their military records corrected to reflect the days of PDMRA leave they were supposed to receive. However, the only way for these soldiers to use this benefit is to take extra paid leave on a future deployment. For those soldiers who will not deploy again or who have left the military entirely, this remedy does not work. Mistakes happen, but they need to be fixed. The Fair Military Leave Act gives troops the option of cashing out the leave they were incorrectly denied when they came home. This solution is modeled after legislation Congress passed in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. As with that bill, the Fair Military Leave Act reimburses soldiers at a rate of $200 per day of PDMRA that they were incorrectly denied. I am pleased to have the senior Senator from Oregon join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. My friend from Oregon led the effort to fix the earlier problem with PDMRA benefits in the 2010 defense authorization. The men and women of our Armed Forces have done so much for our country, and we should not drag our feet in making this right. These troops earned their PDMRA benefit, and they should be allowed to use it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011. This bill would enable visual artists to benefit from their copyrights in a meaningful way similar to other creators of literary and artistic works such as authors, playwrights and composers. It provides for the payment of a copyright royalty long recognized in international law to be paid at the time a work of visual art is sold at auction in the United States. Half of this royalty payment will go directly to the artists or their estate and the other half will be made available to nonprofit American art museums as an endowment to be used by them to purchase the works of living American artists so that these works may be freely enjoyed by everyone. Like all authors, the primary legal right of an artist in his or her work is the copyright. Yet, visual artists stand alone within America's creative community in their inability to gain any significant income under existing copyright law. As an example, creators of music will collect nearly $2 billion in copyright royalty payments this year. By contrast, America's visual artists receive only a tiny amount of copyright income, primarily when their works are reproduced in publications such as museum catalogues. Visual art often generates money only when the original work itself is first sold. The vast majority of money-making sales are not by artists themselves but by collectors, dealers and auction houses who trade in their works after their first sale. Under current law artists receive no income from these sales. For nearly 100 years international copyright law under the Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, of which the United States is a party, has given artists a right to royalties each time their works are resold. However, unlike other rights protected under the Convention, individual countries are not required to recognize the artists' resale right. While over 40 other countries, including all members of the European Union, provide their artists with income from resale of their works, the United States does not. Under the Convention's reciprocity rule, these countries will only pay royalties to artists from countries that also recognize the resale right. As a result, American artists receive no money from these sales. In 1990, Congress enacted the Visual Artists Rights Act that asked the Copyright Office to study the issue of resale royalties and report back with recommendations. The Copyright Office reported back to Congress that creation of new artworks would be encouraged by adoption of the Berne Convention provisions on resale rights, but it recommended that we wait to see whether the European Union would first require all of its member countries to join those like France and Germany who had long provided their artists with such a right. In 2001, the European Union decided to make resale royalties mandatory throughout its territory, underpinning the Copyright Office's initial conclusions about the positive effects of introducing resale rights. In 2006, the United Kingdom was the last EU country to implement its law. In order to make the administration of a resale right as simple as possible, the bill would take 7 percent of any sale $10,000 or more from only the most public and easily accountable transactions, auction sales, and divide the amount by artists or their beneficiaries and non- profit museums to purchase American art. The legislation would apply only to sales by entities that have $25 million per year of cumulative sales of visual art. It also excludes entities that solely conduct business in online auctions over the Internet. The bill gives primary responsibility for collecting and distributing royalties to non- governmental collecting societies with oversight by the Copyright Office and reporting requirements to Congress. This legislation is a long overdue step in fulfilling our obligation under the Berne Convention to award visual artists the benefits derived from the resale of their works, a right that literary and musical artists have enjoyed for decades. Under current law, visual artists are denied royalties for lucrative sales of their art, and this bill is a meaningful start for providing them with just compensation. It is only fair that, as stipulated by international law, visual artists profit from the appreciation in value of their work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011. This bill would enable visual artists to benefit from their copyrights in a meaningful way similar to other creators of literary and artistic works such as authors, playwrights and composers. It provides for the payment of a copyright royalty long recognized in international law to be paid at the time a work of visual art is sold at auction in the United States. Half of this royalty payment will go directly to the artists or their estate and the other half will be made available to nonprofit American art museums as an endowment to be used by them to purchase the works of living American artists so that these works may be freely enjoyed by everyone. Like all authors, the primary legal right of an artist in his or her work is the copyright. Yet, visual artists stand alone within America's creative community in their inability to gain any significant income under existing copyright law. As an example, creators of music will collect nearly $2 billion in copyright royalty payments this year. By contrast, America's visual artists receive only a tiny amount of copyright income, primarily when their works are reproduced in publications such as museum catalogues. Visual art often generates money only when the original work itself is first sold. The vast majority of money-making sales are not by artists themselves but by collectors, dealers and auction houses who trade in their works after their first sale. Under current law artists receive no income from these sales. For nearly 100 years international copyright law under the Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, of which the United States is a party, has given artists a right to royalties each time their works are resold. However, unlike other rights protected under the Convention, individual countries are not required to recognize the artists' resale right. While over 40 other countries, including all members of the European Union, provide their artists with income from resale of their works, the United States does not. Under the Convention's reciprocity rule, these countries will only pay royalties to artists from countries that also recognize the resale right. As a result, American artists receive no money from these sales. In 1990, Congress enacted the Visual Artists Rights Act that asked the Copyright Office to study the issue of resale royalties and report back with recommendations. The Copyright Office reported back to Congress that creation of new artworks would be encouraged by adoption of the Berne Convention provisions on resale rights, but it recommended that we wait to see whether the European Union would first require all of its member countries to join those like France and Germany who had long provided their artists with such a right. In 2001, the European Union decided to make resale royalties mandatory throughout its territory, underpinning the Copyright Office's initial conclusions about the positive effects of introducing resale rights. In 2006, the United Kingdom was the last EU country to implement its law. In order to make the administration of a resale right as simple as possible, the bill would take 7 percent of any sale $10,000 or more from only the most public and easily accountable transactions, auction sales, and divide the amount by artists or their beneficiaries and non- profit museums to purchase American art. The legislation would apply only to sales by entities that have $25 million per year of cumulative sales of visual art. It also excludes entities that solely conduct business in online auctions over the Internet. The bill gives primary responsibility for collecting and distributing royalties to non- governmental collecting societies with oversight by the Copyright Office and reporting requirements to Congress. This legislation is a long overdue step in fulfilling our obligation under the Berne Convention to award visual artists the benefits derived from the resale of their works, a right that literary and musical artists have enjoyed for decades. Under current law, visual artists are denied royalties for lucrative sales of their art, and this bill is a meaningful start for providing them with just compensation. It is only fair that, as stipulated by international law, visual artists profit from the appreciation in value of their work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I agree with the chairman.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I understand there has been some confusion about the application of section 647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is codified in 10 U.S.C. 12731(f). This law reduces the eligibility age for retired pay for non- regular service, to provide a benefit to Reserve component members called to Active Duty in support of a contingency operation. Mr. President, 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13)(B) defines contingency operation to include section 688 relating to the ordering of retired members to Active Duty but does not include section 688a, added in response to 9/ 11 and relating to the ordering to Active Duty of retired members in high-demand, low-density assignments. I filed an amendment to resolve this inconsistency by including mobilizations under section 688a to qualify for earlier receipt of Reserve retired pay under 10 U.S.C. 12731(f). However, I would withdraw my amendment if we can clarify that the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 12731(f) should include mobilizations under 10 U.S.C. 688a. I ask the chairman of the Armed Services Committee whether he understands that Reserve retirees recalled to Active Duty in support of a contingency operation should qualify for earlier receipt of reserve retired pay under section 12731(f).

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the conference report, which includes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration. I am pleased that we followed the regular process to get to this point. It has not always been an easy process, but it has produced a good and well-balanced bill. Overall spending levels in this bill are closer to the Senate bill than the House-passed bill. The conference bill is consistent with our allocation and includes a nondisaster spending level of $19.565 billion, compared to $19.78 billion in the Senate and $17.253 billion in the House. This funding level allowed us to protect important ongoing programs, while continuing to reduce spending from last year. Some of the highlights of the conference report funding levels are as follows: For the WIC Program, we were able to provide an additional $36 million above the Senate, bringing total funding to $570 million above the House level. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides assistance to food pantries, is funded at the fully authorized level of $140 million. The Food and Drug Administration is funded at the Senate level of $2.497 billion, including increased funding to begin implementation of the Food Safety and Modernization Act. The Food Safety and Inspection Service is funded at $1.004 billion, an increase of more than $32 million above the House level. The Public Law 480 Program, which provides international food assistance, is funded at $1.466 billion, an increase of $426 million above the House level. Agricultural research funded through the Agricultural Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is funded at $2.297 billion, an increase of $282 million above the House level. Disaster relief funds for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Emergency Conservation Program, and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program were provided based on the latest USDA estimates. Beyond these important funding items, we also rejected many of the controversial policy riders that were included in the House bill. Among them were a provision prohibiting any food aid for North Korea, which would tie the hands of U.S. negotiators; a provision blocking enforcement of the Energy Independence and Security Act; and a provision blocking participation in a global climate change task force, as well as others. Again, I think this is a well-balanced bill. We worked hard with our House counterparts to identify and maintain priorities that benefit the American people. I would like to again thank Senator Blunt for his help during this entire process. His insights were extremely valuable. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 1, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating International Organized Crime: Evaluating Current Authorities, Tools, and Resources.''

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 1, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled ``China's Role in Africa: Implications for U.S. Policy.''

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, upon passage of this bill, I want to take a moment to thank my ranking member, Senator Blunt, for his guidance and support throughout this process. He and his staff, Stacy McBride and Mary Koskinen, were extraordinarily helpful to me and my staff as we put this bill together. I also thank my staff--Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Dianne Nellor, Bob Ross, and Chad Metzler--for their excellent work. This is an austere bill. As I have stated before, almost every category of funding is lower than last year and much lower than the year before. We have had good debate on the floor about various provisions in the bill, and we have taken many votes. The process has been open and transparent. We have followed the regular order, and this bill was considered on the Senate floor. We can now conference this bill with the House and hopefully send it to the President shortly after that.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the pending DeMint amendment No. 764.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, the first amendment we will be considering today is the Coburn amendment to reduce funding for the rural development mission area by $1 billion, or 41 percent, spread equally over the agency. I am opposing this amendment. This is not the time to curtail essential programs that support jobs and incomes in our rural areas. So I will oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I would now like to yield to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.