Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Residency Program Fairness Act of 2006. This bill would provide for an adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident positions based on settled cost reports. The reason I am introducing this bill is because unintended consequences of Section 422 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 have resulted in a decrease of residents slots in Wisconsin's Fox Valley and potentially in other small urban and rural family medicine practices across the Nation. For more than a year, I have been working with the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and the Fox Valley Fami1y Medicine Residency Program to urge CMS to restore funding for its residency training positions that was taken away as a result of an audit that incorrectly determined that the positions were not used. Now, a Final Mediation Agreement between Appleton Medical Center and United Government Services demonstrates that the positions were being used and that the program met the Medicare requirement for those positions. I believe it is only fair that Appleton Medical Center's residency positions be reinstated. The Fox Valley Family Practice Residency Program is an important contributing member to the Fox Valley and surrounding community, providing health care services to some 10,000 families. This is exactly the type of program that we should be supporting, not reducing. My legislation will right this wrong and provide for the same opportunity for any other small urban or rural program that can demonstrate that its residency slots were erroneously de-funded by CMS. I ask that my Senate colleagues join me by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Residency Program Fairness Act of 2006. This bill would provide for an adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident positions based on settled cost reports. The reason I am introducing this bill is because unintended consequences of Section 422 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 have resulted in a decrease of residents slots in Wisconsin's Fox Valley and potentially in other small urban and rural family medicine practices across the Nation. For more than a year, I have been working with the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and the Fox Valley Fami1y Medicine Residency Program to urge CMS to restore funding for its residency training positions that was taken away as a result of an audit that incorrectly determined that the positions were not used. Now, a Final Mediation Agreement between Appleton Medical Center and United Government Services demonstrates that the positions were being used and that the program met the Medicare requirement for those positions. I believe it is only fair that Appleton Medical Center's residency positions be reinstated. The Fox Valley Family Practice Residency Program is an important contributing member to the Fox Valley and surrounding community, providing health care services to some 10,000 families. This is exactly the type of program that we should be supporting, not reducing. My legislation will right this wrong and provide for the same opportunity for any other small urban or rural program that can demonstrate that its residency slots were erroneously de-funded by CMS. I ask that my Senate colleagues join me by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate will debate and consider the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. We can all agree that the Voting Rights Act was one of the most significant civil rights laws ever enacted in this country. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee unanimously supported this bill, and today we hope the full Senate will pass it as soon as possible. This landmark law reversed nearly 100 years of African-American disenfranchisement. It took years for Congress to devise a law that could not be circumvented or ignored through lengthy litigation or creative interpretation. After numerous failures, a stronger remedy free of litigation was needed to break the 95-year-old obstacle to Black voter participation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided the solution. That law was and remains unique by enforcing the law before a new State voting statute goes into effect rather than fighting it out after the fact for years in court. The section 5 ``pre-clearance'' procedure--along with the banning of literacy texts, poll taxes, and the like--finally worked. Soon, African-American voters did not face an unequal burden to simply exercise their constitutional right to vote. Yet our work was far from over in 1965. Arguably, the great successes of the act we speak of today would not have been realized had Congress not amended and extended the act in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 1992. Important improvements were made to the Act during that time, including the addition of bilingual voter assistance in certain jurisdictions with a substantial number of non-native English speakers. Accordingly, our bill includes amendments which address recent Supreme Court decisions that have made enforcement of some parts of the act unclear. As we all know, key provisions of the Voting Rights Act are set to expire next year. We have made enormous gains for voting rights since 1965, but we should not assume that the vigorous protections of the act have outlived their use. To the contrary, extending the act for another 25 years will ensure that these hard-fought rights will remain in place. Evidence supports this sentiment when one considers that the Department of Justice deemed 626 proposed election law changes discriminatory since the last extension of the act in 1982. Past experience teaches us that we cannot rely upon the courts alone to protect the constitutional right to vote. Quite simply, the Voting Rights Act, and specifically section 5, has worked. The record demonstrates that it continues to be needed to enforce the guarantees of the 14th and 15th Amendments. We commend Chairman Specter for holding this series of hearings on the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, we note the House passed its reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act last week without amendment, and I trust we can and will do the same here in the Senate. Most of us believe the record demonstrates that the act should remain in force, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support is extension. MS. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was written to prevent both direct and indirect assaults on the right to vote. It outlawed the poll taxes and literacy tests and established a system of Federal marshals to help African Americans in the South vote. It also required covered jurisdictions to get Federal preapproval before changing their election laws or any other voting procedure. These changes have made our political system more representative and more just. The Voting Rights Act protects basic constitutional rights. Millions of African Americans have been added to the voting rolls since the act was passed. In 1965, there were only 300 African American elected officials in our country. Today, there are more than 9,100 African Americans who serve in elected public offices and nearly 6,000 Latino elected officials. There are those who say that, while this act may have once been needed, it is no longer required today. I understand their argument but do not agree with it. I do believe, however, that their argument is entitled to an answer. My answer is this: Renewing expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act will ensure that the battle for fairness in our political system is carried on with the full force of law behind it. We certainly still need these protections today. While many of the more obvious and widespread abuses have been eliminated, isolated cases of voting discrimination and intimidation remain. They may be subtle, but they are nonetheless unfair and intolerable, and they extend to not only African Americans but to others as well. A recent court case described nearly two decades of voting rights abuses against Native Americans in South Dakota. We have heard about people videotaping the license plates of Mexican Americans as they went to vote in Dona Ana County, NM, in 2004. As recently as 2001, local officials in Kilmichael, MS, canceled elections out of fear that an African-American mayor might be elected. The Voting Rights Act allowed the Justice Department to intervene, ensuring that the right to vote was protected, and 2 years late Kilmichael elected its first African-American mayor. Mr. President, history tells us that the justification for the continuance of this law is compellingf. It also tells us that full and fair enforcement of this law is essential, too. That is why I cast my vote for justice. That is why I cast my vote for the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization Act.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill that will expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research ensuring that scientists at NIH and laboratories around the country have access to new, uncontaminated stem cell lines. America's best scientific minds have told us that harnessing the power of these cells could one day lead to a cure for a number of diseases that afflict families all across our country. Nearly every family in America has experienced the tragedy of watching a loved one suffer through a deadly or debilitating illness. Diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's take a terrible toll on families' lives and livelihoods. While we have made great strides in biomedical research in recent years, we still do not have all the keys to unlock the secrets of disease. Today the Senate has the opportunity to reach across partisan lines and touch the millions of individuals and families who suffer the ravages of diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. We are not researchers, but today we can give our best researchers the material they need to understand these diseases. We are not doctors, but today we can give our best doctors the weapons to fight back for their dying patients. And we are not patients--at least not yet--but today we can give patients hope for not just relief but a cure. The University of Wisconsin at Madison was the first to isolate the human embryonic stem cells that have the ability to develop into virtually any cell type in the human body. They have stated unequivocally that they need H.R. 810 in order to continue their groundbreaking work. Without H.R. 810, they fear America will fall behind the rest of the world in medical and biotechnical research. We all understand that this research is not without controversy. I respect the concerns that some have about the use of embryonic stem cells. We must closely monitor this research to ensure that it is done ethically, and our passage today of S. 3504 and S. 2754 demonstrates the unanimous bipartisan commitment to do just that. We must step carefully, but we also must step forward, and that is what H.R. 810 is all about, opening new cell lines so we can move forward toward new understanding, new hope, and new cures. Last year, the House took that step forward decisively and in a bipartisan manner, and so this year it is our turn. It would be unconscionable for our Government to turn its back to the discoveries that expanding stem cell research promises. Now more than ever it is important to grasp this opportunity in an ethical manner by making sure that potentially lifesaving research does not slow or stall. We may not be in the laboratories where scientists are working around the clock to develop new vaccines, treatments, and cures. We may not be in the hospitals diagnosing and caring for the sick and the infirm. But today the Senate will openly decide to stand with the scientists, doctors, and patients. I urge my colleagues to look past the politics of this debate and embrace a promise of progress. With that I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. The unneeded exemptions stand in stark contrast to the historical basis for antitrust law and once again allow railroads to abuse their dominant market power and raise rates for those who rely on them. Antitrust law was born out of these same circumstances. Rail barons abused the power they had over shippers--especially farmers. Any American history student can describe the anti-consumer policies that led to the birth of the Sherman Act and later the Clayton Act--the building blocks of today's antitrust law. The historical ties between the railroads and the birth of antitrust law make the situation we face today remarkable. I have heard from a growing number of shippers in Wisconsin--and I know many of my colleagues have heard from their shippers in their States--about the monopolistic practices in which the freight railroads are currently engaged. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under antitrust exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the Nation's rail transportation. Many industries--known as ``captive shippers''--are served by only one railroad. These captive shippers face constantly rising rail rates. They are the victims of 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. In Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. In fact, a coalition has formed, consisting of more than thirty 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. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. There is no better example than Wisconsin's electric utilities. Dairyland Power serves the electricity needs of more than 575,000 people. As of January of this year, they faced a 93 percent average increase in rail rates. According to Dairyland, it will now cost about $80 million to ship $35 million worth of coal, costs that Wisconsin consumers will absorb if Congress does not take action soon. And this problem is not unique to Wisconsin--shippers across the Nation suffer from monopolistic practices of the dominant railroads in their regions. That is why I am introducing the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. 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 antitrust 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. As ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have found--in industry after industry--that 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 support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, since 2001 America has lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs, eroding an industry that was once the pride of the United States. Manufacturing represents the cornerstone of our economy and the best in American values. It creates the cars we drive to work, the computers our children use to learn, and the household appliances we use each day. I rise today to talk about the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, one of the few Federal programs that has provided tangible assistance to the manufacturing sector, keeping companies in business and retaining jobs. MEP is a public-private partnership working with small and medium sized manufacturers, helping them streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times, and lower costs. MEP clients surveyed in fiscal year 2004 reported 43,600 jobs created or retained and $1.889 billion in additional sales. In Wisconsin, where manufacturing employs 512,000 people and contributes 22 percent of the State's gross product, MEP has assisted 1,700 small and medium sized manufacturers to improve their productivity and profitability. One example is the Jor-Mac Company, a metal fabrication company in Grafton, WI, which was beset by fierce Chinese competitors. After working with MEP, Jor-Mac improved its production efficiency, increasing sales by $5 million. Since its inception in 1988, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership has been an invaluable resource to manufacturers. Without strong Federal support, MEP will be unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small manufacturers. At a time when we want to increase economic activity, expand U.S. exports, and strengthen the manufacturing base of our Nation, MEP is a fiscally sound investment of Federal resources.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. The unneeded exemptions stand in stark contrast to the historical basis for antitrust law and once again allow railroads to abuse their dominant market power and raise rates for those who rely on them. Antitrust law was born out of these same circumstances. Rail barons abused the power they had over shippers--especially farmers. Any American history student can describe the anti-consumer policies that led to the birth of the Sherman Act and later the Clayton Act--the building blocks of today's antitrust law. The historical ties between the railroads and the birth of antitrust law make the situation we face today remarkable. I have heard from a growing number of shippers in Wisconsin--and I know many of my colleagues have heard from their shippers in their States--about the monopolistic practices in which the freight railroads are currently engaged. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under antitrust exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the Nation's rail transportation. Many industries--known as ``captive shippers''--are served by only one railroad. These captive shippers face constantly rising rail rates. They are the victims of 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. In Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. In fact, a coalition has formed, consisting of more than thirty 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. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. There is no better example than Wisconsin's electric utilities. Dairyland Power serves the electricity needs of more than 575,000 people. As of January of this year, they faced a 93 percent average increase in rail rates. According to Dairyland, it will now cost about $80 million to ship $35 million worth of coal, costs that Wisconsin consumers will absorb if Congress does not take action soon. And this problem is not unique to Wisconsin--shippers across the Nation suffer from monopolistic practices of the dominant railroads in their regions. That is why I am introducing the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. 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 antitrust 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. As ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have found--in industry after industry--that 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 support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. 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 express my opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation before us. I am concerned about shortcomings in Oman's labor laws, in particular the lack of any provisions allowing workers to form independent unions or to bargain collectively. Also, Oman has no legal prohibitions of sweatshop labor. Some have argued during today's debate that Oman has made improvements in their labor laws and are willing to make more. And it is true that recent labor law reforms in that country have moved the situation for workers from criminal to just terrible. But we should have learned from our experience with Jordan--a country with which we have a free-trade agreement, one that was justified by promised improvements in their labor laws. Just recently, the New York Times published an expose of the dreadful conditions in Jordan's sweatshops. What makes us think that Oman, with weaker labor standards than Jordan, will behave any better after they get their free-trade agreement? Congress needs to stand up for the workers in countries with which we trade before we reward them with unfettered access to our markets--and that means Congress must reject against trade agreements that do not demand strong labor laws and respect for fundamental workers' rights. My ``no'' vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement is also a vote against the way in which the Bush administration has handled trade negotiations. A year ago, Congress debated and ratified CAFTA. I voted against CAFTA because I could not see offering trade concessions to countries with labor standards so far below our own. I challenged this administration to negotiate trade agreements with countries that have strong labor laws. So far, they have not responded. I also voted against CAFTA--and will vote against the Oman agreement today--in protest of a trade policy that is ignoring our rising trade deficit and the job drain that accompanies it. Instead of finding ways to pander to countries with deplorable human rights and worker protection records, the President and his trade negotiators ought to get tough with China and make them play by the rules. In the past 8 months, the President has met with President Hu of China twice. Each meeting was seen as an opportunity to begin to develop policies to respond to China's unfair trade practices, and each time this administration has been eerily silent. In the meantime, our trade deficit has ballooned to $805 billion, and our trade deficit with China alone has risen to $201 billion. What is the President's plan? The U.S. Trade Representative wants to push through as many trade agreements as it can before fast-track Presidential trade negotiating authority expires in 2007. Peru, Columbia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, and Korea are all in the queue. When is enough, enough? When will this administration focus on keeping jobs at home rather than handing out trade concessions abroad? Workers in this country are looking to the President for leadership and answers on how we can keep jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement offers neither. I urge my colleagues to reject the Oman Free Trade Agreement--and reject the misguided, disastrous trade policy it represents.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Trade Commission to reinstate antitrust charges against a brand-name drugmaker. This decision leaves the FTC powerless to stop one of the more egregious tactics used by brand name drug companies 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. Since the appeals court decision, there has been a sharp rise in the number of settlements in which brand-name companies payoff generic competitors to keep their cheaper drugs off the market. In a report issued earlier this 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. Yesterday's decision by the Supreme court is a blow to consumers who save billions of dollars on generics every year. Today I am joined by Senators Leahy, Grassley, and Schumer, to introduce the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This legislation will prohibit these pay- off settlement agreements that only serve the drug companies involved while denying consumers access to cost-saving generic drugs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion every year. And, 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. Just last week, I was successful in including an additional $10 million in the fiscal year 2007 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 and more applications for new generics were received in December 2005 than ever before and this trend continues to grow. But even approval by the FDA doesn't always guarantee that consumers will have access to these affordable drugs. Of the six approved first generics for popular brand-name drugs taken by seniors over the last year, only two have actually reached the market, while the others are being kept off of the shelves by patent disputes. Mr. President, it is time to stop these drug company payoffs 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 into the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Trade Commission to reinstate antitrust charges against a brand-name drugmaker. This decision leaves the FTC powerless to stop one of the more egregious tactics used by brand name drug companies 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. Since the appeals court decision, there has been a sharp rise in the number of settlements in which brand-name companies payoff generic competitors to keep their cheaper drugs off the market. In a report issued earlier this 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. Yesterday's decision by the Supreme court is a blow to consumers who save billions of dollars on generics every year. Today I am joined by Senators Leahy, Grassley, and Schumer, to introduce the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This legislation will prohibit these pay- off settlement agreements that only serve the drug companies involved while denying consumers access to cost-saving generic drugs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion every year. And, 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. Just last week, I was successful in including an additional $10 million in the fiscal year 2007 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 and more applications for new generics were received in December 2005 than ever before and this trend continues to grow. But even approval by the FDA doesn't always guarantee that consumers will have access to these affordable drugs. Of the six approved first generics for popular brand-name drugs taken by seniors over the last year, only two have actually reached the market, while the others are being kept off of the shelves by patent disputes. Mr. President, it is time to stop these drug company payoffs 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 into the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Dr. James Cameron was man of great strength, spirituality, and conviction. Dr. Cameron was born in LaCrosse, WI, in 1914 and moved to Indiana as a teenager. In Indiana, he accompanied two friends involved in an armed robbery that turned to rape and murder. Though Dr. Cameron ran away well before the crime was committed, all three young men were taken to jail. The Ku Klux Klan stormed that jail on August 7, 1930, hung his two friends, and beat him severely. Dr. Cameron survived but spent another 6 years in jail for crimes he did not commit. Dr. Cameron never let us forget the injustice done to the many victims of lynching and racial violence. After moving back to his home State of Wisconsin, he founded the Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee. This unique museum lays bare our Nation's violent past of racism and slavery. His work opened the eyes of thousands to the suffering of African Americans, not only in the age of slavery but also in the decades that followed. Dr. Cameron joined us last year to witness the passage of Resolution No. 39, a resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact antilynching legislation. His mere presence assured us that we were doing the right thing, albeit many years too late. Dr. Cameron is survived by his dear wife Virginia and their wonderful family. His legacy will remain a source of hope and pride for many.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the manufacturing sector is under siege from cheap imports, unfair trade agreements, and escalating heath care and energy costs. Instead of working to alleviate this burden, the Bush administration has turned its back on manufacturing; focusing instead on tax cuts for the rich and their heirs. Indeed, the administration has slashed funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, in this year's budget. MEP helps manufacturers streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times, and lower costs. ATP provides grants to support research and development of high risk, cutting edge technologies. Both MEP and ATP help manufacturers survive and compete with countries like China. I today offer, with Senator DeWine, some more help for beleaguered manufacturers. The Blue Collar Computing and Business Assistance Act of 2006 was drafted from recommendations made by the Council on Competitiveness regarding high performance computing. The legislation would provide grants for the creation of five Advanced Computing Software Centers throughout the United States that would transfer high performance computing technologies to small businesses and manufacturers. High Performance Computing will allow manufacturers to visualize and simulate parts and products before they can be created which will cut the time and cost required to experiment with new materials. General Motors, for example, uses high performance computing to simulate collisions, saving millions of dollars in development costs and substantially shortening design cycle times. Presently, only large companies like GM have the resources to reap the benefits of high performance computing. This bill would provide grants to small and medium manufacturers to implement this technology and create new opportunities for economic growth, job creation and product development and allow manufacturers and businesses to harness the full potential of high performance computing.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the manufacturing sector is under siege from cheap imports, unfair trade agreements, and escalating heath care and energy costs. Instead of working to alleviate this burden, the Bush administration has turned its back on manufacturing; focusing instead on tax cuts for the rich and their heirs. Indeed, the administration has slashed funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, in this year's budget. MEP helps manufacturers streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times, and lower costs. ATP provides grants to support research and development of high risk, cutting edge technologies. Both MEP and ATP help manufacturers survive and compete with countries like China. I today offer, with Senator DeWine, some more help for beleaguered manufacturers. The Blue Collar Computing and Business Assistance Act of 2006 was drafted from recommendations made by the Council on Competitiveness regarding high performance computing. The legislation would provide grants for the creation of five Advanced Computing Software Centers throughout the United States that would transfer high performance computing technologies to small businesses and manufacturers. High Performance Computing will allow manufacturers to visualize and simulate parts and products before they can be created which will cut the time and cost required to experiment with new materials. General Motors, for example, uses high performance computing to simulate collisions, saving millions of dollars in development costs and substantially shortening design cycle times. Presently, only large companies like GM have the resources to reap the benefits of high performance computing. This bill would provide grants to small and medium manufacturers to implement this technology and create new opportunities for economic growth, job creation and product development and allow manufacturers and businesses to harness the full potential of high performance computing.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. As ranking member on the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased that the international community has designated this day. It is important to recognize the grim reality of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and focus on what we can do to end these horrible crimes. In the past 40 years, our Nation has struggled to address some of our society's worst ills: child abuse and domestic violence. Now we must confront elder abuse. For the past 25 years, Congress has held hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse, yet we have taken no comprehensive action. Abuse of the elderly is nothing new, but as our Nation has aged and the baby boom generation stands on the cusp of retirement, the prevalence of elder abuse will only get worse. The time to act is now. We can no longer ignore or tolerate the shame and scandal of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of our Nation's seniors. I have long made ending elder abuse a top priority. I worked hard to develop a national criminal background check system for nursing home, home health, and other long-term care employees. While the vast majority of these employees are diligent, dedicated, and professional, it is too easy for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in long-term care. This is unacceptable. Today, seven States, including my home State of Wisconsin, are engaged in a pilot project based on my legislation which requires long-term care employers to run FBI criminal background checks on potential employees before they are hired and trusted to care for our loved ones. My hope is that upon completion of this pilot project, we will move to a national criminal background check system and protect seniors in all 50 States. I am also a proud original cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act, which takes a number of steps to prevent and treat elder abuse. It will improve prevention and intervention by funding State and local projects that keep older Americans safe. It will ensure that health officials, social services, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates, and families are all working together to confront this problem; and, it will establish training programs so health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics can better detect elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Finally, the bill will establish victim assistance programs, create ``safe havens'' for seniors in dangerous living situations, and help train law enforcement officers to prioritize and investigate cases of elder abuse. Researchers have warned us that the reported cases of elder abuse might only be the tip of the iceberg; that is why World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is so important. We must spread the word: elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation is occurring every day and, if left unchecked, will only grow more prevalent. As I continue my efforts here in the Senate, I encourage my colleagues and Americans everywhere to join me in putting an end to this terrible scourge of elder abuse.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, these days it seems rare that we debate a nonpartisan issue. Too many of the items that Congress considers have more to do with spin than substance, are based more on politics than policy. It is a disturbing trend and that is why I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of the amendment introduced by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. The issue addressed by the Senator's amendment--the fleecing of American taxpayers by war profiteers and corrupt contractors--should disturb every American. My colleague from North Dakota constructed his amendment, which is based on legislation that I have also cosponsored, in reaction to testimony presented at several hearings he held on contracting fraud. At those hearings, witnesses presented example upon example of blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Witnesses testified about abuse ranging from the towels given to our troops to the meals they were served. At every opportunity, no-bid contract winners took advantage of the fact that we are at war to fill their own coffers. That is not a partisan issue--that is a crime. It is a crime that requires punishment, and it is a crime that we could prevent with greater transparency and accountability. That is what this amendment would do. The amendment establishes penalties of up to 20 years in prison and at least $1 million in fines for war profiteering. It also prohibits the award of Federal contracts to companies that have a history of failing to comply with the law. Finally, the amendment requires real competition: For any contract worth more than $10 million, contractors would be allowed to compete, rather than have all the work automatically go to a single contractor. This is a commonsense approach to an appalling problem. When we ask our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, it is repugnant to think that there are those who seek to profit off that sacrifice. Contract fraud does more than cost the taxpayers money--it abuses their confidence. We owe it to our troops, and to the American public, to do all we can to protect such abuses. Senator Dorgan's amendment is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Amendment No. 4241

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Senator Byrd, a man I am honored to call colleague and friend. Senator Byrd is a hero and a patriot--as noble and eloquent as the great Senators--from Cicero to Richard B. Russell--of whom he has taught us all so much. He is a living example of the great opportunity in America. He is a living tribute to the preeminence of our constitutional democracy. Senator Byrd lives to serve the people of West Virginia who sent him here, just as he would die to protect the Constitution that guides his every step. It is his duty and joy to use his prodigious legislative skill for West Virginia, and it is West Virginians' great fortune to be represented by a man who knows and does his job so well. Several years ago, Senator Byrd turned one of my worst days in the Senate into one of my best. It was the end of session, late in the evening, and I had lost a fierce battle over dairy policy. Most Senators were wandering out to make their planes, and Senator Byrd stood up. In ringing tones, he made a short speech about the battle I just lost. In part, he said: ``He has stood up for the people of Wisconsin. That is what I like about him. He stands for principle. He stands for his people.'' No kinder words have been spoken about me in this Chamber--no accolade of which I am more proud. Senator Byrd, you too stand for principle. You stand for your people. And that's what I like about you. I am not an orator like Senator Byrd, and I certainly don't have the words to say what his friendship has meant to me and what his stewardship has meant to this country. Let me instead borrow the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, a poet Senator Byrd quotes often here on the floor and often from memory. I'm sure he knows this one, too: Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time Senator Byrd is a great man. His dedication to duty, his love of country, and his devotion to his family are examples to us all. He leaves footprints in the very soil of this Nation that have and will continue to shape--for the better--who we are. I am grateful for his friendship and honored to serve with him.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to explain to the people of Wisconsin my vote this morning on the estate tax. The arguments surrounding estate tax repeal are muddled, and I believe there are important clarifications to make. First, small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99 percent of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. When the exemption expands to $2.5 million, 99.9 percent of all estates won't owe a dime. According to a report by the Tax Policy Center, in 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax. The second explanation is of what the Senate voted on today. Today's vote was on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. I supported the 2001 tax bill because we were in a time of surplus. That is not the case today. Now we face huge deficits, deficits amplified by the war on terror and reconstructing the gulf coast. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021. We cannot afford, at this time, these kinds of costs. Nevertheless, I do support estate tax reform, and I will work with my colleagues towards that end. Responsible estate tax reform is possible and necessary. We must work to find an exemption level coupled with a tax rate that will provide significant relief, while not adding nearly a trillion dollars to the next generation's tab.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the comprehensive immigration reform bill today. This bill appreciates the importance of addressing the problem of illegal immigration and border security while at the same time proposing an intelligent solution to the issue of the millions of people here without documentation today. First and foremost, we need to control our borders and enforce our laws. This bill adds thousands of additional border patrol agents and authorizes the use of the National Guard to help secure our borders. It wisely increases the use of technology--including unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, cameras, and motion sensors--so we can succeed in controlling our borders. It also enhances the authority of our immigration enforcement officials to deport criminals and others who may seek to do us harm. This will significantly enhance our ability to catch people before they enter the country, and deport those who do. I could not support a bill that I did not believe could secure our borders. Border security alone is not sufficient. We must also enforce our laws in our interior. This bill includes a strong employment verification system, so that employers can determine who in this country is eligible to work, and will be punished when they employ those who are here illegally. If we do not dry up the demand for illegal workers among employers, it will remain difficult to control the supply of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country. Law enforcement alone, however, is not the entire solution. We must be realistic about how to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in this country. It is not realistic to deport them all. For those hardworking, law-abiding people who have been here for years and set down roots in our communities, it is reasonable to allow them to earn citizenship over a significant time period. This is not amnesty, and it is not automatic legalization. Under this bill, if they pay thousands of dollars in fines for violating our immigration laws, work for a number of years, learn English, and pay any taxes they may owe, only then do they go to the back of the citizenship line. They are asked to earn their legalization over the course of eleven or twelve years and demonstrate that they deserve to be an American. We have succeeded in creating a comprehensive bipartisan solution, one that I believe effectively addresses each of the many complex issues that plague our immigration system today. There are few issues as important as immigration facing this country today, and I am glad that we have put the time and effort into crafting a solution we can be proud of: one that is both tough and fair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act. This legislation will significantly strengthen the antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions in oil and gas industry. We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices have now shattered the once unthinkable $3.00 a gallon level, have doubled in the last 5 years, and increased more than 30 percent in the last year alone. And prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. Industry experts debate the causes of these extraordinarily high prices. Possible culprits are growing worldwide demand, supply disruptions, the actions of the OPEC oil cartel and limits on refinery capacity in the United States. But about one thing there can be no doubt--the substantial rise in concentration and consolidation in the oil industry. Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has counted over 2,600 mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures in the oil industry. Led by gigantic mergers such as Exxon/Mobil, BP/Arco, Conoco/ Phillips and Chevron/Texaco, by 2004, the five largest U.S. oil refining companies controlled over 56 percent of domestic refining capacity, a greater market share than that controlled by the top 10 companies a decade earlier. This merger wave has led to substantially less competition in the oil industry. In 2004, the GAO concluded that these mergers have directly caused increases in the price of gasoline. A study by the independent consumer watchdog Public Citizen found that in the 5 years between 1999 and 2004, U.S. oil refiners increased their average profits on every gallon of gasoline refined from 22.8 cents to 40.8 cents, a 79 percent jump. And the grossly inflated profit numbers of the major oil companies--led by Exxon Mobil's $8.4 billion profit in the first quarter of 2006, which followed its $36 billion profit in 2005, the highest corporate profits ever achieved in U.S. history, are conclusive evidence--if any more was needed--of the lack of competition in the U.S. oil industry. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and other refined products--and greatly compound their profits along the way--confirms that that there is a failure of competition in our oil and gas markets. More than 90 years ago, one of our Nation's basic antitrust laws--the Clayton Act--was written to prevent just such industry concentration harming competition. It makes illegal any merger or acquisition the effect of which ``may be substantially to lessen competition.'' Despite the plain command of this law, the Federal Trade Commission--the Federal agency with responsibility for enforcing antitrust law in the oil and gas industry--has failed to take any effective action to prevent undue concentration in this industry. Instead, it permitted almost all of these 2,600 oil mergers and acquisitions to proceed without challenge. And where the FTC has ordered divestitures, they have been wholly ineffective to restore competition. Consumers have been at the mercy of an increasingly powerful oligopoly of a few giant oil companies, passing along price increases without remorse as the market becomes increasingly concentrated and competition diminishes. It is past time for us in Congress to take action to strengthen our antitrust law so that it will, as intended, stand as a bulwark to protect consumers and prevent any further loss of competition in this essential industry. Our bill will strengthen merger enforcement under the antitrust law in two respects. First, it will direct that the FTC, in conjunction with the Justice Department, revise its Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry. In reviewing a pending merger or acquisition to determine whether to approve it or take legal action to block it, the FTC follows what are known as ``Merger Guidelines.'' The Merger Guidelines set forth the factors that the agency must examine to determine if a merger or acquisition lessens competition, and sets forth the legal tests the FTC is to follow in deciding whether to approve or challenge a merger. As presently written, the Merger Guidelines fail to direct the FTC, when reviewing an oil industry merger, to pay any heed at all to the special economic conditions prevailing in that industry. Our bill will correct this deficiency. Many special conditions prevail in the oil and gas marketplace that warrant scrutiny, conditions that do not occur in other industries, and the Merger Guidelines should reflect these conditions. In most industries, when demand rises and existing producers earn ever-increasing profits, new producers enter the market and new supply expands, reducing the pressure on price. However, in the oil industry, there are severe limitations on supply and environmental and regulatory difficulty in opening new refineries, so this normal market mechanism cannot work. Additionally, in most industries, consumers shift to alternative products in the face of sharp price increases, leading to a reduction in demand and a corresponding reduction in the pressure to increase prices. But for such an essential commodity as gasoline, consumers have no such option--they must continue to consume gasoline to get to work, to go to school, and to shop. These factors all mean that antitrust enforcers should be especially cautious about permitting increases in concentration in the oil industry. Accordingly, our bill directs the FTC and Justice Department to revise its Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry--including the high inelasticity of demand for oil and petroleum-related products; the ease of gaining market power; supply and refining capacity limits; difficulties of market entry; and unique regulatory requirements applying to the oil industry. This revision of the Merger Guidelines must be completed within 6 months of enactment of this legislation. The second manner in which this legislation will strengthen antitrust enforcement will be to shift the burden of proof in Clayton Act challenges to oil industry mergers and acquisitions. In such cases, the burden will be placed on the merging parties to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that their transaction does not substantially lessen competition. This provision would reverse the usual rule that the government or private plaintiff challenging the merger must prove that the transaction harms competition. As the parties seeking to effect a merger with a competitor in an already concentrated industry, and possessing all the relevant data regarding the transaction, it is entirely appropriate that the merging parties bear this burden. This provision does not forbid all mergers in the oil industry if the merging parties can establish that their merger does not substantially harm competition, it may proceed. However, shifting the burden of proof in this manner will undoubtedly make it more difficult for oil mergers and acquisition to survive court challenge, thereby enhancing the law's ability to block truly anticompetitive transactions and deterring companies from even attempting such transactions. In today's concentrated oil industry and with consumers suffering record high prices, mergers and acquisitions that even the merging parties cannot justify should not be tolerated. As ranking member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this bill is a crucial step to ending this unprecedented move towards industry concentration and to begin to restore competitive balance to the oil and gas industry. Since the days of the break-up of the Standard Oil trust 100 years ago, antitrust enforcement has been essential to prevent undue concentration in this industry. This bill is an essential step to ensure that our antitrust laws are sufficiently strong to ensure a competitive oil industry in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act. 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 Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act. This legislation will significantly strengthen the antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions in oil and gas industry. We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices have now shattered the once unthinkable $3.00 a gallon level, have doubled in the last 5 years, and increased more than 30 percent in the last year alone. And prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. Industry experts debate the causes of these extraordinarily high prices. Possible culprits are growing worldwide demand, supply disruptions, the actions of the OPEC oil cartel and limits on refinery capacity in the United States. But about one thing there can be no doubt--the substantial rise in concentration and consolidation in the oil industry. Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has counted over 2,600 mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures in the oil industry. Led by gigantic mergers such as Exxon/Mobil, BP/Arco, Conoco/ Phillips and Chevron/Texaco, by 2004, the five largest U.S. oil refining companies controlled over 56 percent of domestic refining capacity, a greater market share than that controlled by the top 10 companies a decade earlier. This merger wave has led to substantially less competition in the oil industry. In 2004, the GAO concluded that these mergers have directly caused increases in the price of gasoline. A study by the independent consumer watchdog Public Citizen found that in the 5 years between 1999 and 2004, U.S. oil refiners increased their average profits on every gallon of gasoline refined from 22.8 cents to 40.8 cents, a 79 percent jump. And the grossly inflated profit numbers of the major oil companies--led by Exxon Mobil's $8.4 billion profit in the first quarter of 2006, which followed its $36 billion profit in 2005, the highest corporate profits ever achieved in U.S. history, are conclusive evidence--if any more was needed--of the lack of competition in the U.S. oil industry. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and other refined products--and greatly compound their profits along the way--confirms that that there is a failure of competition in our oil and gas markets. More than 90 years ago, one of our Nation's basic antitrust laws--the Clayton Act--was written to prevent just such industry concentration harming competition. It makes illegal any merger or acquisition the effect of which ``may be substantially to lessen competition.'' Despite the plain command of this law, the Federal Trade Commission--the Federal agency with responsibility for enforcing antitrust law in the oil and gas industry--has failed to take any effective action to prevent undue concentration in this industry. Instead, it permitted almost all of these 2,600 oil mergers and acquisitions to proceed without challenge. And where the FTC has ordered divestitures, they have been wholly ineffective to restore competition. Consumers have been at the mercy of an increasingly powerful oligopoly of a few giant oil companies, passing along price increases without remorse as the market becomes increasingly concentrated and competition diminishes. It is past time for us in Congress to take action to strengthen our antitrust law so that it will, as intended, stand as a bulwark to protect consumers and prevent any further loss of competition in this essential industry. Our bill will strengthen merger enforcement under the antitrust law in two respects. First, it will direct that the FTC, in conjunction with the Justice Department, revise its Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry. In reviewing a pending merger or acquisition to determine whether to approve it or take legal action to block it, the FTC follows what are known as ``Merger Guidelines.'' The Merger Guidelines set forth the factors that the agency must examine to determine if a merger or acquisition lessens competition, and sets forth the legal tests the FTC is to follow in deciding whether to approve or challenge a merger. As presently written, the Merger Guidelines fail to direct the FTC, when reviewing an oil industry merger, to pay any heed at all to the special economic conditions prevailing in that industry. Our bill will correct this deficiency. Many special conditions prevail in the oil and gas marketplace that warrant scrutiny, conditions that do not occur in other industries, and the Merger Guidelines should reflect these conditions. In most industries, when demand rises and existing producers earn ever-increasing profits, new producers enter the market and new supply expands, reducing the pressure on price. However, in the oil industry, there are severe limitations on supply and environmental and regulatory difficulty in opening new refineries, so this normal market mechanism cannot work. Additionally, in most industries, consumers shift to alternative products in the face of sharp price increases, leading to a reduction in demand and a corresponding reduction in the pressure to increase prices. But for such an essential commodity as gasoline, consumers have no such option--they must continue to consume gasoline to get to work, to go to school, and to shop. These factors all mean that antitrust enforcers should be especially cautious about permitting increases in concentration in the oil industry. Accordingly, our bill directs the FTC and Justice Department to revise its Merger Guidelines to take into account the special conditions prevailing in the oil industry--including the high inelasticity of demand for oil and petroleum-related products; the ease of gaining market power; supply and refining capacity limits; difficulties of market entry; and unique regulatory requirements applying to the oil industry. This revision of the Merger Guidelines must be completed within 6 months of enactment of this legislation. The second manner in which this legislation will strengthen antitrust enforcement will be to shift the burden of proof in Clayton Act challenges to oil industry mergers and acquisitions. In such cases, the burden will be placed on the merging parties to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that their transaction does not substantially lessen competition. This provision would reverse the usual rule that the government or private plaintiff challenging the merger must prove that the transaction harms competition. As the parties seeking to effect a merger with a competitor in an already concentrated industry, and possessing all the relevant data regarding the transaction, it is entirely appropriate that the merging parties bear this burden. This provision does not forbid all mergers in the oil industry if the merging parties can establish that their merger does not substantially harm competition, it may proceed. However, shifting the burden of proof in this manner will undoubtedly make it more difficult for oil mergers and acquisition to survive court challenge, thereby enhancing the law's ability to block truly anticompetitive transactions and deterring companies from even attempting such transactions. In today's concentrated oil industry and with consumers suffering record high prices, mergers and acquisitions that even the merging parties cannot justify should not be tolerated. As ranking member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this bill is a crucial step to ending this unprecedented move towards industry concentration and to begin to restore competitive balance to the oil and gas industry. Since the days of the break-up of the Standard Oil trust 100 years ago, antitrust enforcement has been essential to prevent undue concentration in this industry. This bill is an essential step to ensure that our antitrust laws are sufficiently strong to ensure a competitive oil industry in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act. 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 legislation that would temporarily reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners on behalf of S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI. I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2000, Wisconsin has been hit hard, losing 90,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. And the production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so many American families healthy and strong. This legislation would reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners, an input S.C. Johnson refines to make high quality and affordable shower cleaners that eliminate the build-up of tough soap scum, mold, and mildew stains for the U.S. market. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 12,000 people and provides products in more than 110 countries around the world. In January of 2006, S.C. Johnson was awarded the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership for its outstanding achievements in employee and community relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would temporarily reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners on behalf of S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI. I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2000, Wisconsin has been hit hard, losing 90,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. And the production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so many American families healthy and strong. This legislation would reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners, an input S.C. Johnson refines to make high quality and affordable shower cleaners that eliminate the build-up of tough soap scum, mold, and mildew stains for the U.S. market. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 12,000 people and provides products in more than 110 countries around the world. In January of 2006, S.C. Johnson was awarded the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership for its outstanding achievements in employee and community relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the tax reconciliation conference report before us. We cannot afford it, and we don't need it. Even more distressing, it benefits overwhelmingly those with incomes greater than $1 million at the expense of middle-income families, of our ability to protect and defend our Nation and of our fiscal bottom line. We cannot afford adding $70 billion to the burgeoning deficit. Months ago, my colleagues voted to cut programs such as Medicaid and child support--programs that directly serve low-income families and the elderly. They did this in the name of deficit reduction. Yet today, those same Senators will vote to add $70 billion to the deficit. We don't need the majority of this bill. The centerpiece of that $70 billion is an extension of the tax breaks on capital gains and dividend income. My colleagues have argued that this will prevent a tax increase, but we all know such an increase is not imminent. The cut on capital gains and dividends will not expire until 2008; this legislation extends it from 2008 to 2010. This legislation puts the needs of everyday Americans behind the luxury of an unnecessary tax break. Families making $50,000 a year or less will see an average of $20--half a tank of gas--in benefits from this bill. But those with incomes of more than $1 million will get back an average of $42,000, enough to buy a new SUV. The needs of everyday Americans are ignored by this legislation. Businesses are ignored as the bill fails to extend the expired research and development tax credit. It overlooks the needs of students trying to pay for college by not extending the expired deduction for higher- education tuition expenses. It ignores our teachers, by failing to extend the expired deduction for their classroom expenses. Let's set aside extending tax cuts that don't expire for 2 years in favor of extending those that expire now. Let's not go on a $70 billion spending spree in the face of record levels of Federal deficit and debt. Let's not use our limited revenues to enrich those that need the least at the expense of those who need the most. Finally, let's send a message to the American people about where our priorities lie.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Today the Senate once again considered medical liability reform bills--S. 22 and S. 23--both of which would impose an arbitrary cap on the amount of noneconomic damages--pain and suffering awards--an injured patient can receive in a medical malpractice lawsuit. This is not the first time the Senate has dealt with such legislation. In years past, there were real problems with skyrocketing premiums that insurance companies were charging doctors. Even then, imposing damage caps was the wrong approach to address the issue and remains just as wrong today. A so-called reform based on arbitrarily capping pain and suffering awards is not a panacea. Studies show that passing a Federal medical malpractice law with damage caps will likely have no impact on runaway insurance premiums. Further, there is no promise that any savings insurance companies realize from such a law would be passed on to doctors. Moreover, we find that medical malpractice premiums have leveled off or are no longer increasing in both States with and without caps on noneconomic damages. A reasonable person could question why we are even considering this legislation when it appears the problem is abating. Nonetheless, some insist against all evidence that we need to pass these bills to save the health care system. Just as I have opposed similar damage cap bills in the past, I will oppose both S. 22 and S. 23. Wisconsin has thoroughly addressed this issue with great success. As a result, we do not have a medical liability insurance crisis like some other States. Wisconsin has a noneconomic cap and a system that works for doctors and patients alike. Specifically, Wisconsin limits the amount of liability insurance a medical professional must obtain, and beyond that, Wisconsin's Patient Compensation Fund ensures that injured patients are fully reimbursed for their damages. I oppose doing anything to upset the delicate balance the State has found. Though neither S. 22 nor S. 23 would preempt Wisconsin's damage caps, Wisconsin law would be overturned in several other areas. For example, Wisconsin law grants children the right to sue, better ensures that victims fully recover their damages from defendants, and does not limit attorney fees as much as the Federal proposal. I will not support a Federal solution that undoes Wisconsin's law. To be sure, the larger issue of medical liability reform deserves a serious debate instead of the resurfacing of a one-sided solution. We might want to look to Wisconsin as a model.

Mr KOHL

Mr KOHL. Mr. President, this week has been designated Cover the Uninsured Week. It is week that we mark every year to spur our Nation to act to address the growing number of Americans who lack health insurance. Sadly, that this has become an annual event shows that we have made little progress. I hope this year will be different, and that the administration and the congressional leadership will finally make health care a priority. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that more than 45 million Americans lack health insurance--that is one out of every six people. Wisconsin fares slightly better with 11 percent of our population without health coverage. These numbers have increased every year since 1999. All across the country, families and businesses are struggling to afford basic health care, and too many are losing the battle. Government joined the fray, with some success, in the past. In 1997, Congress created the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which led to the BadgerCare program in Wisconsin. Since SCHIP's inception, the program has provided medical coverage and care to millions of children throughout the Nation who otherwise would have gone without. In addition, States have stepped in to provide a safety net for the poorest of the poor through Medicaid and high-risk insurance pools. Despite these gains, many working families still need help. According to a report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, 41 percent of working-age Americans with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year were uninsured for at least part of 2005. This is a dramatic increase from 2001, when just 28 percent of those with moderate incomes were uninsured. This is an alarming statistic but not surprising. Skyrocketing health care costs have rendered insurance unaffordable to most families and businesses. In 1996, annual premiums for employers grew by 0.8 percent; by 2003, that growth averaged 13.9 percent. Last year, the average premium jumped 9.2 percent, and some areas of Wisconsin saw increases of as much as 24 percent. All employers struggle with the costs of health care, but none more than the small employer. Many have stopped offering health insurance altogether, swelling the number of uninsured full-time workers. Congress could help employers to continue providing health insurance by passing the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act, which I cosponsored. The legislation, modeled after the health insurance system available to Federal workers, allows small employers to band together to purchase health insurance for their employees and negotiate better prices. It also gives employers a refundable tax credit to help with the costs of providing insurance for low-income employees. Helping employers afford health care premiums is only part of the answer; we also must tackle the problem of escalating health care costs driven largely by the rising cost of prescription drugs. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for medicines sold in other countries for a fraction of the cost. I support reforms such as allowing Americans to purchase less expensive prescription drugs from Canada and other countries with strong protections to ensure the safety of those medicines. I have also cosponsored legislation to speed to market generic drugs, which cost much less than their brand-name counterparts. And I believe we must allow Medicare to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices for seniors participating in the new Medicare drug benefit. America is the leader of the world in health care innovation. We have the highest per-capita spending on health care of any developed nation, but we rank at the bottom when it comes to health insurance coverage. That is inexcusable. For too long we have said the right things, but failed to take concrete action. Let's make the next year different. Next year, we should spend this week celebrating real progress rather than lamenting another year of inaction. Another year of empty rhetoric and pointing fingers will get us no closer to the goal of ensuring all Americans reliable, affordable health coverage. I stand ready to work with those on both sides of the aisle who are interested in making a real difference in the coming year.