Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to discuss three proposed amendments to S. 4, Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. I thank Senators Lieberman, Collins, Dodd and Shelby for working with me and my staff on provisions to protect seniors in the event of an emergency. Unfortunately, two important provisions were pulled at the behest of Republicans to limit the number of amendments offered by Democrats. It has been almost 2 years since our Nation reeled from the tragic and shameful images of seniors abandoned during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Sadly, we now know that 71 percent of the people who died were older than 60. Last year, as the ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, we held a hearing to examine how prepared the Nation is to care for our seniors in the event of a national emergency. What we learned was disheartening. We learned that our Nation is woefully unprepared to meet the unique needs of our seniors in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other emergency. Cookie cutter emergency plans are of little use to seniors, especially those who depend on others for assistance in their daily lives. We need specific plans, programs, and information for all seniors facing emergencies. That is why Senators Wyden, Coleman and I offered several amendments to the 9/11 legislation to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security place seniors on the forefront of its emergency planning agenda. The first amendment, which is supported by the American Public Health Association, is an important step towards ensuring that seniors are protected when the next national emergency occurs. This amendment would ensure that any recipient of a homeland security grant, under title II, will include in its State, local, or tribal homeland security plan the evacuation, transportation, and health care needs of the elderly. It would also require that the needs of the elderly are incorporated into any preparedness exercises or trainings for emergency responders to ensure they are adequately prepared to safeguard our seniors in the event of an emergency. This amendment would have sent a strong signal to States and communities that are engaged in emergency planning that seniors must be a priority. Unfortunately, this is one of the amendments pulled from a manager's package of approved amendments at the last minute. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Wyden's amendment to establish a Special Needs Registry Pilot Project, which is supported by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. One of the most useful recommendations from our Aging Committee hearing last year was to follow the lead of counties like Miami-Dade in Florida. They have successfully set up a voluntary registry where seniors can list where they live, their transportation limitations, their health needs, and whether they may need help getting food and other supplies during an emergency. It's clear that more cities and counties could benefit from these kinds of special needs registries. That's why this amendment would have created a pilot project for local emergency management agencies to set up and test these registries, allowing first responders to locate and care for seniors before and during emergencies. It was our hope that this pilot project would have helped spark a nationwide effort to establish special needs registries; unfortunately this amendment was also pulled at the last minute. On a brighter note, I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby again for working with me and Senator Coleman to successfully include a provision, supported by the American Public Health Association, in title XIV that would ensure that public transportation workers are trained to meet the evacuation needs of seniors in the event of a crisis. This is particularly important since so many of our seniors utilize public transportation for access to their everyday needs. Furthermore, only public transportation has the capacity to move millions of people and provide first responders with critical support in major evacuations of urban areas. This provision will go a long way to ensure that our seniors are taken care of if we have another emergency or disaster. Unfortunately, two crucial provisions intended to safeguard the needs of seniors were not included in the final bill due to partisan efforts to limit Democratic amendments. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita taught us many painful lessons that should never be forgotten. I will not forget and I intend to pursue legislation aimed at explicitly safeguarding the needs of America's seniors in the event of an emergency. The time to act to protect our seniors is now.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act. This is the third year that a bipartisan group of Senators will come together in support of this legislation to serve the individuals in our society who most need our help. Due to short-sighted policy passed in the 1990's, elderly and disabled humanitarian immigrants face a time limit of seven years on eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Refugees and asylees have seven years to become citizens--an inadequate amount of time, given the bureaucratic delays and hurdles these individuals face. Thus, thousands have already lost their benefits, and tens of thousands more will lose this important benefit if Congress does not enact our legislation. It is estimated that in the next decade, more than 40,000 elderly or disabled humanitarian immigrants will lose their SSI benefits. This program is a safety net for those who need it; in 2007, the maximum SSI benefit is $623 for an individual and $934 for a couple--barely enough to afford basic necessities. The program is structured to help those with severe barriers to work or elderly individuals with little or no retirement income. To allow these benefits to expire is to take away a lifeline from the neediest individuals. In Wisconsin, these individuals are often of Hmong descent. Many fought with the U.S. 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 serves as a shelter for those faced with persecution or torture in their own countries. Across the country, we have heard their stories; whether Jews and Baptists fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union or Iraqis and Cubans escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy toward refugees and asylees embodies the best of our country--compassion, opportunity, and freedom. Our legislation will bring the SSI program in line with our other policies towards these humanitarian immigrants. This legislation extends the amount of time that refugees and asylees have to become citizens to nine 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 two 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. I believe we must act now to protect these individuals--we cannot let another year go by without action. 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 with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act. This is the third year that a bipartisan group of Senators will come together in support of this legislation to serve the individuals in our society who most need our help. Due to short-sighted policy passed in the 1990's, elderly and disabled humanitarian immigrants face a time limit of seven years on eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Refugees and asylees have seven years to become citizens--an inadequate amount of time, given the bureaucratic delays and hurdles these individuals face. Thus, thousands have already lost their benefits, and tens of thousands more will lose this important benefit if Congress does not enact our legislation. It is estimated that in the next decade, more than 40,000 elderly or disabled humanitarian immigrants will lose their SSI benefits. This program is a safety net for those who need it; in 2007, the maximum SSI benefit is $623 for an individual and $934 for a couple--barely enough to afford basic necessities. The program is structured to help those with severe barriers to work or elderly individuals with little or no retirement income. To allow these benefits to expire is to take away a lifeline from the neediest individuals. In Wisconsin, these individuals are often of Hmong descent. Many fought with the U.S. 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 serves as a shelter for those faced with persecution or torture in their own countries. Across the country, we have heard their stories; whether Jews and Baptists fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union or Iraqis and Cubans escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy toward refugees and asylees embodies the best of our country--compassion, opportunity, and freedom. Our legislation will bring the SSI program in line with our other policies towards these humanitarian immigrants. This legislation extends the amount of time that refugees and asylees have to become citizens to nine 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 two 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. I believe we must act now to protect these individuals--we cannot let another year go by without action. 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. In Congress, we rarely have the opportunity to consider a simple, straightforward issue. It is uncommon when we can debate an issue with significant bipartisan support; one that the Senate has a strong record on. And it seems exceptional when we are able to show our support for a Federal program that really works. But the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today gives us that rare opportunity. Our legislation restores cuts to the child support enforcement program. The program helps States collect support that is owed to hardworking, single parent families. It is one of the most effective Federal programs, collecting more than $4 in child support for every dollar spent. And the Senate already has a strong record in support of the child support enforcement program, with 76 Senators voting for a resolution that rejected cuts to the program. Which is why I was so disappointed when conferees included in the Deficit Reduction Act a provision to prevent, States from receiving Federal matching funds on incentive payments. While the scope of this provision may have seemed narrow to the conferees, the impact has been felt throughout the country. And my State of Wisconsin has felt it more than most--as a high-performing State, Wisconsin stands to lose more Federal funding than a State with a poorer enforcement record. Congress should not send the message to States that they will be penalized for success--but that's exactly what the child support funding cuts did. I fought against the Deficit Reduction Act, because I knew these cuts would hurt Wisconsin families. The impact has been clear. The cuts are so damaging--and the program so important--that one Wisconsin community has decided to hold a raffle, to raise funds for their child support enforcement program. I have heard from child support directors who will be forced by budget cuts to fire staff. And I have heard from scared constituents who are owed child support that they worry they will never see. That is why I am proud to join Senators Rockefeller, Cornyn, Snowe and Coleman in introducing this legislation. By repealing the DRA cuts, we help our States, our counties--and most importantly--we help those constituents relying on child support payments. I urge my colleagues to take this rare opportunity--to do what's simple, to support the Senate's record, and to vote in favor of a program with proven success at helping our nation's children. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. In Congress, we rarely have the opportunity to consider a simple, straightforward issue. It is uncommon when we can debate an issue with significant bipartisan support; one that the Senate has a strong record on. And it seems exceptional when we are able to show our support for a Federal program that really works. But the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today gives us that rare opportunity. Our legislation restores cuts to the child support enforcement program. The program helps States collect support that is owed to hardworking, single parent families. It is one of the most effective Federal programs, collecting more than $4 in child support for every dollar spent. And the Senate already has a strong record in support of the child support enforcement program, with 76 Senators voting for a resolution that rejected cuts to the program. Which is why I was so disappointed when conferees included in the Deficit Reduction Act a provision to prevent, States from receiving Federal matching funds on incentive payments. While the scope of this provision may have seemed narrow to the conferees, the impact has been felt throughout the country. And my State of Wisconsin has felt it more than most--as a high-performing State, Wisconsin stands to lose more Federal funding than a State with a poorer enforcement record. Congress should not send the message to States that they will be penalized for success--but that's exactly what the child support funding cuts did. I fought against the Deficit Reduction Act, because I knew these cuts would hurt Wisconsin families. The impact has been clear. The cuts are so damaging--and the program so important--that one Wisconsin community has decided to hold a raffle, to raise funds for their child support enforcement program. I have heard from child support directors who will be forced by budget cuts to fire staff. And I have heard from scared constituents who are owed child support that they worry they will never see. That is why I am proud to join Senators Rockefeller, Cornyn, Snowe and Coleman in introducing this legislation. By repealing the DRA cuts, we help our States, our counties--and most importantly--we help those constituents relying on child support payments. I urge my colleagues to take this rare opportunity--to do what's simple, to support the Senate's record, and to vote in favor of a program with proven success at helping our nation's children. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe it is my role to investigate and help end-- monopolistic practices that exploit American consumers. In that spirit, I rise today to introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Feingold, Vitter and Rockefeller, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under the exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was recently documented in a Government Accountability Office October 2006 report. That report found that, ``concerns about competition and captivity, in the rail industry, remain as traffic is concentrated in fewer railroads.'' The report also stated that the Surface Transportation Board, the entity charged with ensuring that the industry remains competitive, has failed to do so. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed. The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. These exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations-- Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. And similar stories exist across the country. That is why I'm joining with my colleagues to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses. The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antirust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions. No good reason exists for them. 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. Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, State attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti- competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow State attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries. It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On 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, 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 anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe it is my role to investigate and help end-- monopolistic practices that exploit American consumers. In that spirit, I rise today to introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Feingold, Vitter and Rockefeller, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under the exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was recently documented in a Government Accountability Office October 2006 report. That report found that, ``concerns about competition and captivity, in the rail industry, remain as traffic is concentrated in fewer railroads.'' The report also stated that the Surface Transportation Board, the entity charged with ensuring that the industry remains competitive, has failed to do so. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed. The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. These exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations-- Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. And similar stories exist across the country. That is why I'm joining with my colleagues to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses. The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antirust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions. No good reason exists for them. 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. Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, State attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti- competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow State attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries. It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On 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, 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 anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue. This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier, so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue. This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier, so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I have the unenviable task of encouraging my colleagues to support the continuing resolution that lies before the Senate. Loading all of the unfinished bills from last year into a continuing resolution that barely funds programs at adequate levels is not my idea of a job well done by the Senate. The Senate should have worked its will last year and passed these bills separately before the end of the fiscal year. But that is now water under the bridge. Our task today is to finish off this process so that we can move forward with a fresh start in a new year. The continuing resolution before us is a stripped down, bare bones version of a funding bill. It contains no earmarks--not a one. It provides the minimum funding needed to protect our rural communities, and keep our farming economy going. It provides support for critical research that helps keep our agriculture sector productive and put food on our tables--but we have left it up to the USDA to apportion these funds. Critical efforts to protect rural drinking water and grow rural housing were also maintained. In short, we did the best we could to protect rural America, save small farms, and maintain a safe and reliable food supply. I understand that some Members may not be happy with some of the difficult choices that we had to make. But the alternative is much worse. Continuing to live under the current funding agreement would have been devastating to rural America, agribusiness, and would have shaken consumers' faith in the food they buy at the local grocery store. Without this continuing resolution, the Food Safety and Inspection Service would not have enough funds to get through the rest of the year. Without it, FSIS would have to lay off employees beginning in September. Without inspectors, 6,000 meat and poultry facilities would be shut down across the country. Do any of my colleagues want to explain to their constituents why they can't buy meat during the month of September? Without this CR, 700,000 people connected to the food industry will be laid off once the USDA can no longer inspect the meat produced in this country. The proposal before us may not be perfect, but I believe it is a better alternative than endangering our food supply. The cuts threatened by the current funding agreement will hurt more than just our grocery shopping habits. They will also be felt in doctor's offices and hospitals around the country. Continuation of the current CR will force the Food and Drug Administration to lay off 652 personnel. Some of these employees have the job of approving new medical devices. Does the Senate really want to force patients to wait up to 20 percent longer for the medical care that will help them recover? Does the Senate really want to stand in the way of these kinds of life and death decisions? Sometimes in this body we can get caught up in the dollars and cents of the decisions we make, and lose track of the impact our votes have on real peoples lives. I understand that there are many of my colleagues that are concerned about the budget deficit. I am as well. I came to the Senate when there were record deficits, and we took difficult votes to get this country back into financial shape and create budget surpluses. I know what it takes to balance a budget. But not funding food inspections and delaying life saving medical care is not the way we should balance the budget. We have a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the people back home. The current CR fails to fulfill that mission, but the bill we are going to pass succeeds. Mr. President I yield the remainder of the time to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 5 minutes, and that following my remarks, the remaining time until 12:30 p.m. be provided to the Republican side.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in more detail about the ``earmarks'' that some members of this body claim remain in H.J. Res. 20. On February 7, 2007, one of our colleagues issued a press release on his Web site which was critical of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing appropriations resolution. Of note was his claim that the resolution continues a number of earmarks. That claim, both generally and specifically, is not true. The list of ``earmarks,'' stated as fact in this press release, are all supposedly found in the Ag Chapter of the resolution. I would like to take a minute to address those specific items and explain why this information is wrong. Our colleague claims that H.J. Res. 20 provides $350,000 for the World Food Prize. Although this item was funded in the fiscal year 06 bill as part of General Provision 790, H.J. Res. 20, in section 21004, provides that the amount available for Section 790 is zero. So, obviously, that earmark has been removed. Our colleague claims that $1.5 million for construction of the entrance to the U.S. National Arboretum is funded in H.J. Res. 20. First of all, this item was never included in the 2006 bill, which is what H.J. Res. 20 is based on. It was, however, included in the 2007 bill under the agricultural research service buildings and facilities account. H.J. Res. 20, in section 20101, provides that the amount available for that account is zero. The entire account, not just the earmark, is removed. Our colleague claims that H.J. Res. 20 contains more than $1 million for alternative salmon products, including baby food products. This item was funded under the special research grants program of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. H.J. Res. 20, in section 20102, provides that the amount available for that program is zero so the earmark is removed. Our colleague claims that H.J. Res. 20 contains $591,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute. This item was also funded under the special research grants account of the Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service, which, as I stated earlier, was eliminated in section 20102 of H.J. Res. 20. Thus the earmark was removed. Here is a third ``earmark'' claim under this same account, which was eliminated. The Senator claims that H.J. Res. 20 contains $295,000 for wool research, again, under the special research grants account of the Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service. I repeat again that H.J. Res. 20, in section 20102, provides that the amount available for that program is zero. Again, and I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but the earmarks are removed. In another account, the Senator claims that $232,000 remains for the National Wild Turkey Federation. This item was funded under the Federal Administration program of the Extension Service. H.J. Res. 20 provides that all funds for the Federal Administration program are reduced to a level that only protects Federal FTE positions definitely not the National Wild Turkey Federation. H.J. Res. 20, in section 20103, provides that all other funding in that program, which would include funds for the National Wild Turkey Federation, is zero. There are no earmarks. The Senator claims that $100,000 is contained in the Agricultural Marketing Service account to establish a farm-raised catfish grading system. However, this item was never included in the 2006 bill, which, again, is what H.J. Res. 20 is based on. It was included in the 2007 bill, which never even passed the Senate floor. There is not, and never was, any funding for this activity in a bill that passed the House or Senate. There are no earmarks in this account. Finally, the Senator's press release states that $2,970,000 is continued to maintain a partnership between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This was funding provided by the natural resources conservation service conservation operations account to a non-Federal entity. H.J. Res. 20, in section 20104, provides that all funds for the conservation operations account were reduced to a level that only protects federal FTE positions. H.J. Res. 20 provides that all other funding in that program, which would include funds for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, is zero. Once again, there are no earmarks. As our colleagues should now realize, not only does H.J. Res. 20 not continue these items, H.J. Res. 20 actually removes the money which would make their funding possible, even if the administration wished to do so. For even those who wish to claim that money is still provided in the resolution which would enable the items to end up getting funded, it is obvious that in these claims, specifically listed in a press release, that is simply not possible. While I do appreciate zeal for finding and making public all earmarks, perhaps a closer reading of H.J. Res. 20 would have prevented these misstatements from occurring.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to provide further clarity that cloned animals and the products of cloned animals may not be considered organic under the National Organic Program. A recent article in the Washington Post suggested that there has been some confusion over this point at USDA. I would hope that the Department's advisory board on these matters would utilize existing law to protect the integrity of organic standards without Congressional intervention. I believe they have more than adequate authority to do so. But if they fail to do so, Congress may be left with no option but to intervene. This bill has one purpose and one purpose only; to protect the integrity of organic standards. The conditions under which cloned animal products enter our general food systems will be much debated in the months and years to come. But I would hope that we can begin that discussion with general consensus that it is not acceptable for cloned food products to enter the marketplace under the organic label.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to provide further clarity that cloned animals and the products of cloned animals may not be considered organic under the National Organic Program. A recent article in the Washington Post suggested that there has been some confusion over this point at USDA. I would hope that the Department's advisory board on these matters would utilize existing law to protect the integrity of organic standards without Congressional intervention. I believe they have more than adequate authority to do so. But if they fail to do so, Congress may be left with no option but to intervene. This bill has one purpose and one purpose only; to protect the integrity of organic standards. The conditions under which cloned animal products enter our general food systems will be much debated in the months and years to come. But I would hope that we can begin that discussion with general consensus that it is not acceptable for cloned food products to enter the marketplace under the organic label.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act of 2007. This legislation will ensure that the Commission is able to finalize its report examining the state of the Nation's antitrust laws in a timely manner by granting it a brief 30 day extension to close out its operations. I thank my co- sponsors Senators Hatch and Specter for joining me in introducing this measure. Congress established the Antitrust Modernization Commission through the passage of the Antitrust Modernization Act of 2002. The Commission's purpose was to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws'' of our Nation. In fulfillment of this purpose the Commission is now finalizing a comprehensive report due to both Congress and the President by April 2, 2007. Currently, the Commission expects the report to be submitted in a timely manner. The Commission is concerned, however, with the sufficiency of the statutorily required 30 day deadline to dismantle itself following the submission of the report. In order to comply with the current statutory framework and shut down operations within 30 days of the report's submission date, the Commission will need to begin archiving its records prior to its completion of the report. This large administrative undertaking will interfere with the Commission's final efforts on the report given the Commission's very limited staff resources. In view of the importance of the report, it is imperative that no aspect of this report be jeopardized by administrative deadlines. To alleviate this burden on the closing operations of the Commission, I am introducing this legislation to extend the Commission's administrative shutdown period from 30 days to 60 days. Granting an additional 30 days to the Commission will provide it with time to archive Commission records and work product, while allowing it to perform other necessary close-out tasks, including the transfer of its acquired property to other government agencies, without interfering with the completion of its report. Furthermore, the time extension requested does not contemplate the appropriation of any additional funding to the Commission. In fact, the Commission expects that it will likely return at least $500,000 to the Treasury of the $4 million allocated to it upon fulfillment of its purpose. This 30 day extension is merely directed at the administrative process of wrapping up operations. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will effectively and efficiently allow the Antitrust Modernization Commission to complete its designated tasks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I express my gratitude and thanks to Richard M. Shapiro for his many years of service to the Members and staff of the Congress. I and other Members honor him for his dedication to this great institution, his tireless work on its behalf, and the countless ways in which he has helped us serve the public over nearly three decades, including almost two decades as executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation. Mr. Shapiro began his impressive career in 1978 here in the Senate, when he was a staff investigator at the former Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. After receiving a master's degree in public policy from Princeton University, Mr. Shapiro returned to Congress as the staff director for the former House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Investigations and later became staff director at the House Small Business Subcommittee on Regulations and Business Opportunities. In those positions, he continued to learn Congress inside and out, especially the importance of good management in the formation of effective teams and the unique challenges facing managers in Congress. This experience led him to become deputy executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation in 1988, and just 1 year later he became executive director. During his years at CMF, Rick has undertaken numerous strategies with just one goal--helping Congress do the public's business more efficiently and effectively. His efforts as a management consultant have involved countless office retreats, staff surveys, individual assessments, and strategic planning sessions. Rick has also delivered dozens of training programs to address the needs of legislative and support staff. He has also authored and coauthored several books including the biannual ``House and Senate Staff Salary Survey, Frontline Management, and Setting Course; A Congressional Management Guide'' which has proved to be an invaluable guide for hundreds of new Members as they arrive in Congress. Rick has also undertaken a wide range of activities to help Congress effectively move into the Digital Age, including recommendations on Web site design and managing Internet communications. I can speak directly to the terrific work that Rick has done over the years because for more than a decade he has played a critical role in helping me and my staff manage the challenges and take advantage of opportunities we have in representing the people of Wisconsin here in the Senate. That assistance has taken a wide variety of forms, ranging from multiday all-staff retreats, to staff surveys and analysis, to individual staff assessment and advice. He has helped us design annual evaluations, improve our salary and bonus structure, design our Web site, improve our mail system, and--perhaps most importantly--step back and assess our environment regularly to be sure we are doing our best for the people of Wisconsin. Rick's efforts on behalf of our office reflect the amazing dedication and commitment that he has brought to every task over the years. There is never any question too small--or any hour too late--for him to make himself available to offer advice. His thoughtful analysis has been critical to many decisions I have made over the years, and I am grateful for his assistance at many key junctures in my career. I know that my office operates much more efficiently and effectively today thanks to his advice over the years. Beyond his work with my office, I would also like to honor Rick for his dedication in continuing and dramatically expanding the work of CMF. Nonprofit organizations are a bit like restaurants--many of them open every year, but few of them last. Ultimately, those that survive do so as a result of the tireless dedication of a very small group of people, and in the case of CMF, Rick has helped them not only survive but to thrive and grow. During his tenure, the budget for CMF has more than quadrulpled, while the staff has doubled and the work done for Congress has grown exponentially. As I mentioned earlier, Rick and CMF have undertaken a wide range of activities on behalf of Congress. Ultimately, Rick and CMF have a ``whatever it takes'' attitude, and we in Congress have been the beneficiaries of that intensity, creativity, and dedication. In conclusion, I would like to honor Rick for his tireless dedication to assisting Senators, Congressmen, staff, and the entire institution of the Congress in our efforts to better serve the American people. We are grateful for all of his hard work over the years, and we look forward to working with him again in the future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act of 2007. This legislation will ensure that the Commission is able to finalize its report examining the state of the Nation's antitrust laws in a timely manner by granting it a brief 30 day extension to close out its operations. I thank my co- sponsors Senators Hatch and Specter for joining me in introducing this measure. Congress established the Antitrust Modernization Commission through the passage of the Antitrust Modernization Act of 2002. The Commission's purpose was to ``examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws'' of our Nation. In fulfillment of this purpose the Commission is now finalizing a comprehensive report due to both Congress and the President by April 2, 2007. Currently, the Commission expects the report to be submitted in a timely manner. The Commission is concerned, however, with the sufficiency of the statutorily required 30 day deadline to dismantle itself following the submission of the report. In order to comply with the current statutory framework and shut down operations within 30 days of the report's submission date, the Commission will need to begin archiving its records prior to its completion of the report. This large administrative undertaking will interfere with the Commission's final efforts on the report given the Commission's very limited staff resources. In view of the importance of the report, it is imperative that no aspect of this report be jeopardized by administrative deadlines. To alleviate this burden on the closing operations of the Commission, I am introducing this legislation to extend the Commission's administrative shutdown period from 30 days to 60 days. Granting an additional 30 days to the Commission will provide it with time to archive Commission records and work product, while allowing it to perform other necessary close-out tasks, including the transfer of its acquired property to other government agencies, without interfering with the completion of its report. Furthermore, the time extension requested does not contemplate the appropriation of any additional funding to the Commission. In fact, the Commission expects that it will likely return at least $500,000 to the Treasury of the $4 million allocated to it upon fulfillment of its purpose. This 30 day extension is merely directed at the administrative process of wrapping up operations. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will effectively and efficiently allow the Antitrust Modernization Commission to complete its designated tasks. 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 Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This legislation will stop one of the most egregious tactics used by the brand-name pharmaceutical industry to keep generic competitors off the market, leaving consumers with unnecessary high drug prices. The way it is done is simple--a drug company that holds a patent on a blockbuster brand-name drug, pays a generic drug maker off to delay the sale of a competing generic product that might dip into their profits. The brand name company profits so much by delaying competition that it can easily afford to pay off the generic company, leaving consumers the big losers who continue to pay unnecessarily high drug prices. Last year, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Trade Commission to reinstate anti-trust charges against a brand-name drugs maker. Since the recent court decisions allowing these backroom deals, there has been a sharp rise in the number of settlements in which brand-name companies pay off generic competitors to keep their cheaper drugs off the market. In a report issued last year, the FTC found that more than two-thirds of the 10 settlement agreements made in 2006 included a pay-off from the brand in exchange for a promise by the generic company to delay entry into the market. The decision by the Supreme Court is a blow to consumers who save billions of dollars on generics every year. When brand, name drugs lose patent rights, this opens the door for consumers, employers, third- party payers, and other purchasers to save billions--63 percent on average--by using generic versions of these drugs. A recent study released earlier this year by Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, showed that health plans and consumers could save $26.4 billion over the next 5 years by using the generic versions of 14 popular drugs that are scheduled to lose their patent protections before 2010. Last year, I was successful in including an additional $10 million in the fiscal year 07 Agriculture Appropriations bill for the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Generic Drugs, an effort to help reduce the growing backlog of generic drug applications. The FDA Office of Generic Drugs has reported a backlog of more than 800 generic drug applications with more applications for new generics being received than ever before. But even approval by the FDA doesn't always guarantee that consumers will have access to these affordable drugs. Brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers have learned to circumvent the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, commonly referred to as Hatch-Waxman, using litigation and other means to extend the life of patents and keep generics from entering the market Of the six approved first generics for LA popular brand-name drugs taken by seniors over the last year, only two have actually reached the market, while the others are being kept of the shelves by patent disputes. We cannot profess to care about the high cost of prescription drugs while turning a blind eye to anticompetitive backroom deals between brand and generic drug companies. It's time to stop these drug company pay-offs that only serve the companies involved and deny consumers to affordable generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. 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 Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This legislation will stop one of the most egregious tactics used by the brand-name pharmaceutical industry to keep generic competitors off the market, leaving consumers with unnecessary high drug prices. The way it is done is simple--a drug company that holds a patent on a blockbuster brand-name drug, pays a generic drug maker off to delay the sale of a competing generic product that might dip into their profits. The brand name company profits so much by delaying competition that it can easily afford to pay off the generic company, leaving consumers the big losers who continue to pay unnecessarily high drug prices. Last year, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Trade Commission to reinstate anti-trust charges against a brand-name drugs maker. Since the recent court decisions allowing these backroom deals, there has been a sharp rise in the number of settlements in which brand-name companies pay off generic competitors to keep their cheaper drugs off the market. In a report issued last year, the FTC found that more than two-thirds of the 10 settlement agreements made in 2006 included a pay-off from the brand in exchange for a promise by the generic company to delay entry into the market. The decision by the Supreme Court is a blow to consumers who save billions of dollars on generics every year. When brand, name drugs lose patent rights, this opens the door for consumers, employers, third- party payers, and other purchasers to save billions--63 percent on average--by using generic versions of these drugs. A recent study released earlier this year by Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, showed that health plans and consumers could save $26.4 billion over the next 5 years by using the generic versions of 14 popular drugs that are scheduled to lose their patent protections before 2010. Last year, I was successful in including an additional $10 million in the fiscal year 07 Agriculture Appropriations bill for the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Generic Drugs, an effort to help reduce the growing backlog of generic drug applications. The FDA Office of Generic Drugs has reported a backlog of more than 800 generic drug applications with more applications for new generics being received than ever before. But even approval by the FDA doesn't always guarantee that consumers will have access to these affordable drugs. Brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers have learned to circumvent the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, commonly referred to as Hatch-Waxman, using litigation and other means to extend the life of patents and keep generics from entering the market Of the six approved first generics for LA popular brand-name drugs taken by seniors over the last year, only two have actually reached the market, while the others are being kept of the shelves by patent disputes. We cannot profess to care about the high cost of prescription drugs while turning a blind eye to anticompetitive backroom deals between brand and generic drug companies. It's time to stop these drug company pay-offs that only serve the companies involved and deny consumers to affordable generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today on the first day of this new Congress to introduce the Citizen Petition Fairness and Accuracy Act of 2007. This legislation will help speed the introduction of cost-saving generic drugs by preventing abuses of the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition process. Consumers continue to suffer all across our country from the high-- and ever rising--cost of prescription drugs. A recent independent study found that prescription drug spending has more than quadrupled since 1990, and now accounts for 11 percent of all health care spending. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world, returning more than 15 percent on their investments. One key method to bring prescription drug prices down is to promote the introduction of generic alternatives to expensive brand name drugs. Consumers realize substantial savings once generic drugs enter the market. Generic drugs cost on average 63 percent less than their brand- name equivalents. One study estimates that every 1 percent increase in the use of generic drugs could save $4 billion in health care costs. This is why I have been so active in pursuing legislation designed to combat practices which impede the introduction of generic drugs. The legislation I introduce today, which I first introduced last year with Senator Leahy in last Congress, targets one particularly pernicious practice by brand name drug companies to impede or block the marketing of generic drugs--abuse of the FDA citizen petition process. FDA rules permit any person to file a so-called ``citizen petition'' to raise concerns about the safety or efficacy of a generic drug that a manufacturer is seeking FDA approval to bring to market. While this citizen petition process was put in place for a laudable purpose, unfortunately in recent years it has been abused by frivolous petitions submitted by brand name drug manufacturers (or individuals acting at their behest) whose only purpose is to delay the introduction of generic competition. The FDA has a policy of not granting any new generic manufacturer's drug application until after it has considered and evaluated any citizen petitions regarding that drug. The process of resolving a citizen petition (even if ultimately found to be groundless) can delay the approval by months or years. Indeed, brand name drug manufacturers often wait to file citizen petitions until just before the FDA is about to grant the application to market the new generic drug solely for the purpose of delaying the introduction of the generic competitor for the maximum amount of time possible. This gaming of the system should not be tolerated. In recent years, FDA officials have expressed serious concerns about the abuse of the citizen petition process. In 2005, FDA Chief Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw noted that ``[t]he citizen petition process is in some cases being abused. Sometimes, stakeholders try to use this mechanism to unnecessarily delay approval of a competitor's products.'' He added that he found it ``particularly troublesome'' that he had ``seen several examples of citizen petitions that appear designed not to raise timely concerns with respect to the legality or scientific soundness of approving a drug application, but rather to delay approval by compelling the agency to take the time to consider the arguments raised in the petition, regardless of their merits, and regardless of whether the petitioner could have made those very arguments months and months before.'' And a simple look at the statistics gives credence to these concerns. Of the 21 citizen petitions for which the FDA has reached a decision since 2003, 20--or 95 percent of them--have been found to be without merit. Of these, ten were identified as ``eleventh hour petitions'', defined as those filed less than 6 months prior to the estimated entry date of the generic drug. None of these ten ``eleventh hour petitions'' were found to have merit, but each caused unnecessary delays in the marketing of the generic drug by months or over a year, causing consumers to spend millions and millions of dollars for their prescription drugs than they would have spent without these abusive filings. Despite the expense these frivolous citizen petitions cause consumers and the FDA, under current law the government has absolutely no ability to sanction or penalize those who abuse the citizen petition process, or who file citizen petitions simply to keep competition off the market. Our legislation will correct this obvious shortcoming and give the Department of Health and Human Services--the FDA's parent agency the power to sanction those who abuse the process. Our bill will, for the first time, require all those who file citizen petitions to affirm certain basic facts about the truthfulness and good faith of the petition, similar to what is required of every litigant who makes a filing in court. The party filing the citizen petition will be required to affirm that the petition is well grounded in fact and warranted by law; is not submitted for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay in approval of competing drugs; and does not contain any materially false, misleading or fraudulent statement. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to investigate a citizen petition to determine if it has violated any of these principles, was submitted for an improper purpose, or contained false or misleading statements. Further, the Secretary is authorized to penalize anyone found to have submitted an abusive citizen petition. Possible sanctions include a fine up to one million dollars, a suspension or permanent revocation of the right of the violator to file future citizens' petition, and a dismissal of the petition at issue. HHS is also authorized to refer the matter to the Federal Trade Commission so that the FTC can undertake its own investigation as to the competitive consequences of the frivolous petition and take any action it finds appropriate. Finally, the bill directs the HHS that all citizen petitions be adjudicated within six months of filing, which will put an end to excessive delays in bringing needed generic drugs to market because of the filings of these petitions. While our bill will not have any effect on any person filing a truly meritorious citizen petition, this legislation will serve as a strong deterrent to attempts by brand name drug manufacturers or any other party that seeks to abuse the citizen petition process to thwart competition. It will thereby remove one significant obstacle exploiting by brand name drug companies to prevent or delay the introduction of generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Generics First Act. This legislation requires the use of available generic drugs under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, unless the brand name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a physician. Everywhere I go in Wisconsin, I see how prescription drug costs are a drain on seniors, families, and businesses that are struggling to pay their health care bills. They want help now and we can respond by expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 63 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control. The private and public sectors, as well as individuals, are seeking relief from high drug costs, and Senate Special Committee on Aging has heard some remarkable success stories from some who have turned to generic drugs. Last year, General Motors testified that, in 2005, they spent $1.9 billion dollars on prescription drugs, 40 percent of their total health care spending. Their program to use generics first, when a generic drug is available, saves GM nearly $400 million a year. Last year, millions of seniors exceeded the initial $2,250 Medicare drug benefit and fell into the ``donut hole,'' where they had to pay the full price of their drugs. Using less expensive, but equally effective, generic drugs will keep seniors out of the ``donut hole'' longer and help them survive the gap in coverage. Generic drugs approved by the FDA must meet the same rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand drug. Generics perform the same as their respective brand name product. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current gap in coverage or ``donut hole'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost- saving generic drug alternatives. We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of dollars, and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, and families. And every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is one piece of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and making sure that every senior, every family, every business, and every government program knows the value of generics and uses them to bring costs down. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today on the first day of this new Congress to introduce the Citizen Petition Fairness and Accuracy Act of 2007. This legislation will help speed the introduction of cost-saving generic drugs by preventing abuses of the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition process. Consumers continue to suffer all across our country from the high-- and ever rising--cost of prescription drugs. A recent independent study found that prescription drug spending has more than quadrupled since 1990, and now accounts for 11 percent of all health care spending. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world, returning more than 15 percent on their investments. One key method to bring prescription drug prices down is to promote the introduction of generic alternatives to expensive brand name drugs. Consumers realize substantial savings once generic drugs enter the market. Generic drugs cost on average 63 percent less than their brand- name equivalents. One study estimates that every 1 percent increase in the use of generic drugs could save $4 billion in health care costs. This is why I have been so active in pursuing legislation designed to combat practices which impede the introduction of generic drugs. The legislation I introduce today, which I first introduced last year with Senator Leahy in last Congress, targets one particularly pernicious practice by brand name drug companies to impede or block the marketing of generic drugs--abuse of the FDA citizen petition process. FDA rules permit any person to file a so-called ``citizen petition'' to raise concerns about the safety or efficacy of a generic drug that a manufacturer is seeking FDA approval to bring to market. While this citizen petition process was put in place for a laudable purpose, unfortunately in recent years it has been abused by frivolous petitions submitted by brand name drug manufacturers (or individuals acting at their behest) whose only purpose is to delay the introduction of generic competition. The FDA has a policy of not granting any new generic manufacturer's drug application until after it has considered and evaluated any citizen petitions regarding that drug. The process of resolving a citizen petition (even if ultimately found to be groundless) can delay the approval by months or years. Indeed, brand name drug manufacturers often wait to file citizen petitions until just before the FDA is about to grant the application to market the new generic drug solely for the purpose of delaying the introduction of the generic competitor for the maximum amount of time possible. This gaming of the system should not be tolerated. In recent years, FDA officials have expressed serious concerns about the abuse of the citizen petition process. In 2005, FDA Chief Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw noted that ``[t]he citizen petition process is in some cases being abused. Sometimes, stakeholders try to use this mechanism to unnecessarily delay approval of a competitor's products.'' He added that he found it ``particularly troublesome'' that he had ``seen several examples of citizen petitions that appear designed not to raise timely concerns with respect to the legality or scientific soundness of approving a drug application, but rather to delay approval by compelling the agency to take the time to consider the arguments raised in the petition, regardless of their merits, and regardless of whether the petitioner could have made those very arguments months and months before.'' And a simple look at the statistics gives credence to these concerns. Of the 21 citizen petitions for which the FDA has reached a decision since 2003, 20--or 95 percent of them--have been found to be without merit. Of these, ten were identified as ``eleventh hour petitions'', defined as those filed less than 6 months prior to the estimated entry date of the generic drug. None of these ten ``eleventh hour petitions'' were found to have merit, but each caused unnecessary delays in the marketing of the generic drug by months or over a year, causing consumers to spend millions and millions of dollars for their prescription drugs than they would have spent without these abusive filings. Despite the expense these frivolous citizen petitions cause consumers and the FDA, under current law the government has absolutely no ability to sanction or penalize those who abuse the citizen petition process, or who file citizen petitions simply to keep competition off the market. Our legislation will correct this obvious shortcoming and give the Department of Health and Human Services--the FDA's parent agency the power to sanction those who abuse the process. Our bill will, for the first time, require all those who file citizen petitions to affirm certain basic facts about the truthfulness and good faith of the petition, similar to what is required of every litigant who makes a filing in court. The party filing the citizen petition will be required to affirm that the petition is well grounded in fact and warranted by law; is not submitted for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay in approval of competing drugs; and does not contain any materially false, misleading or fraudulent statement. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to investigate a citizen petition to determine if it has violated any of these principles, was submitted for an improper purpose, or contained false or misleading statements. Further, the Secretary is authorized to penalize anyone found to have submitted an abusive citizen petition. Possible sanctions include a fine up to one million dollars, a suspension or permanent revocation of the right of the violator to file future citizens' petition, and a dismissal of the petition at issue. HHS is also authorized to refer the matter to the Federal Trade Commission so that the FTC can undertake its own investigation as to the competitive consequences of the frivolous petition and take any action it finds appropriate. Finally, the bill directs the HHS that all citizen petitions be adjudicated within six months of filing, which will put an end to excessive delays in bringing needed generic drugs to market because of the filings of these petitions. While our bill will not have any effect on any person filing a truly meritorious citizen petition, this legislation will serve as a strong deterrent to attempts by brand name drug manufacturers or any other party that seeks to abuse the citizen petition process to thwart competition. It will thereby remove one significant obstacle exploiting by brand name drug companies to prevent or delay the introduction of generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 Generics First Act. This legislation requires the use of available generic drugs under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, unless the brand name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a physician. Everywhere I go in Wisconsin, I see how prescription drug costs are a drain on seniors, families, and businesses that are struggling to pay their health care bills. They want help now and we can respond by expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 63 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control. The private and public sectors, as well as individuals, are seeking relief from high drug costs, and Senate Special Committee on Aging has heard some remarkable success stories from some who have turned to generic drugs. Last year, General Motors testified that, in 2005, they spent $1.9 billion dollars on prescription drugs, 40 percent of their total health care spending. Their program to use generics first, when a generic drug is available, saves GM nearly $400 million a year. Last year, millions of seniors exceeded the initial $2,250 Medicare drug benefit and fell into the ``donut hole,'' where they had to pay the full price of their drugs. Using less expensive, but equally effective, generic drugs will keep seniors out of the ``donut hole'' longer and help them survive the gap in coverage. Generic drugs approved by the FDA must meet the same rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand drug. Generics perform the same as their respective brand name product. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current gap in coverage or ``donut hole'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost- saving generic drug alternatives. We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of dollars, and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, and families. And every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is one piece of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and making sure that every senior, every family, every business, and every government program knows the value of generics and uses them to bring costs down. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.