Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Lester Crawford to serve as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. The FDA has been without a permanent director for too long. I believe Lester Crawford is qualified to head the FDA and hope the establishment of permanent leadership can put to rest some of the uncertainty and delayed decisions that have been plaguing the agency for the last year. While I remain concerned about resistance by the FDA to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs to ensure that our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs, I have expressed my concerns to Dr. Crawford. The reality is that drug importation is already happening. It's time to stop defending the status quo and setting up new roadblocks, and I am hopeful that Dr. Crawford will work with Congress to give Americans the price relief and safety assurances they need. I am also hopeful that the appointment of Dr. Crawford will help restore the agency's focus on ensuring that safe and effective drugs reach the market in a timely manner, and that recent issues that have plagued the FDA, such as questions regarding drug safety, advisory committee conflicts of interest and drug advertisements, to name only a few, will be addressed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Lester Crawford to serve as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. The FDA has been without a permanent director for too long. I believe Lester Crawford is qualified to head the FDA and hope the establishment of permanent leadership can put to rest some of the uncertainty and delayed decisions that have been plaguing the agency for the last year. While I remain concerned about resistance by the FDA to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs to ensure that our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs, I have expressed my concerns to Dr. Crawford. The reality is that drug importation is already happening. It's time to stop defending the status quo and setting up new roadblocks, and I am hopeful that Dr. Crawford will work with Congress to give Americans the price relief and safety assurances they need. I am also hopeful that the appointment of Dr. Crawford will help restore the agency's focus on ensuring that safe and effective drugs reach the market in a timely manner, and that recent issues that have plagued the FDA, such as questions regarding drug safety, advisory committee conflicts of interest and drug advertisements, to name only a few, will be addressed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of Senator Gaylord Nelson. The people of Wisconsin owe him a debt a gratitude for his years of service to the State. And the Nation owes him honor as the founder of Earth Day and the driving force behind the way the American people and the world view the environment and environmental conservation. Gaylord Nelson was born the third of four children on June 4, 1916 in Clear Lake, WI, a community of about 700 people in the northwest corner of the State. Nelson's parents were deeply involved in Clear Lake civic activities and his first lessons in political discourse were around his boyhood kitchen table. Those early days were a foundation on which Senator Nelson built a lifetime of public service. Senator Nelson first won elected office in 1948, after 4 years in the military during World War II. He served as a Wisconsin State Senator, Governor, and then as a U.S. Senator for 18 years. As Governor, he fought to preserve Wisconsin's forests and wetlands long before those causes became popular nationally. As a Senator, he built on his environmentalist legacy working to protect the Appalachian Trail corridor and to create the national trail system. He fought for consumer protection and was one of only three Senators to vote against the $700 million appropriation that signaled the start of the ground war in Vietnam. However, Gaylord Nelson's greatest gift was his vision of a national day to protect and celebrate our environment. What started out as an idea in the early 1960's blossomed into a national day of observance with an estimated 20 million demonstrators participating in the first Earth Day in 1970. Earth Day is still celebrated. This year 500 million people in 167 countries took part. Earth Day publicized in an unprecedented manner the dangers of poisons in our water and air, pesticides in our drinking water, and chemicals in our soil. Armed with information and a spirit of activism, Americans turned their Earth Day celebrations into a movement pressuring Congress and the President to pass the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund legislation. These are the foundation of our environmental law today, and they would not have been possible without the work and vision of Senator Gaylord Nelson. Though Gaylord Nelson left the Senate in 1981, he never stopped working for the Earth and environment, going on to lead the Wilderness Society's important work on environmental conservation. In 1990, he received the Ansel Adams Conservation Award, given to a Federal official who has shown tireless commitment to the cause of conservation and the fostering of an American land ethic. In 1992, the United Nations Environment Programme presented Gaylord Nelson with the Only One World Award. And in 1995, Senator Nelson received the Nation's highest civilian award: the Presidential Medal of Freedom. On that day, President Clinton proclaimed: ``As the father of Earth Day, he is the grandfather of all that grew out of that event: the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.'' Senator Gaylord Nelson worked not just for our State, or even just our country. His gift was to the Earth and his legacy, a cleaner, healthier world. And though Gaylord is gone, he lives on--for us and into the future--in every clear stream, breath of fresh air and virgin trail. We honor him by thinking as he did, globally and responsibly. We honor him by--on every day, not just Earth day--taking seriously our responsibility to the air, land and water that sustain us.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the CAFTA implementing legislation before us today. Unlike NAFTA, CAFTA won't encourage the migration of a large number of manufacturing jobs out of the country or significant worsen our already terrible trade deficit; CAFTA countries only account for 1.5 percent of total U.S. trade. And unlike the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement which put my State's dairy farmers at a competitive disadvantage, CAFTA harms most industries like sugar and textiles that do not have a large presence in Wisconsin. But there are bigger reasons to reject CAFTA today--reasons that apply across all regions of the country and should convince all Senators. We should reject CAFTA because it makes equal trading partners out of countries with labor and environmental standards far below those in the United States. Instead of using our negotiating power with these countries to lock in improvements in these standards, CAFTA establishes rules on workers' rights that take a step backward from the labor conditions that exist in current trade programs with Central America. When we make deals like CAFTA, we do more than give up jobs to low- wage countries. When we make deals like CAFTA, we accept and encourage a global economy where workers' rights, living wages, and humane treatment are an anachronism. When we make deals like CAFTA, we tell U.S. businesses that the tough environmental standards they live by-- and pay for--are not necessary for their overseas competitors. Why does the continuing flow of jobs moving overseas surprise us given this message--a message sent by our top trade officials and negotiators? In a region where labor laws fall far short of minimum international standards and where workers are routinely intimidated, fired, and threatened for trying to exercise their most basic rights on the job, CAFTA's move backwards on workers' rights is unacceptable. As a businessman, I understand that trade agreements that open markets can be good for the economy--but not if they do so by accepting as the global norm the least common denominator in labor and environmental standards. The administration has agreed to support $40 million per year from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009 to aid CAFTA countries with their labor and environmental protection programs and an additional $30 million per year over the same period to assist farmers in CAFTA countries who may be displaced by the expected increase of agricultural imports from the U.S. Mr. President, I am in favor of opening international markets for U.S. goods, but why do we need to spend $190 million over 3 years to have countries trade with us? Wouldn't it have been easier to have CAFTA countries work with the International Labor Organization to develop the capacity to monitor and enforce labor and environmental protections? At a time when the trade deficit keeps rising--$655 billion in fiscal year 2004 up from $530 billion in fiscal year 2003--and the Federal deficit is at an all-time high, the U.S. needs to negotiate free-trade agreements where both sides play by the same rules. When I meet with constituents and the conversation turns to trade or jobs, the topic of China inevitably comes up and I am asked what we are going to do about China. Mr. President, what are we going to do about China? I certainly have trouble trusting those who negotiated CAFTA to work out the answer to that dilemma--an answer that will have a much larger and more direct impact on our economy. We cannot remain competitive with countries that pay their workers next to nothing, have no labor or environmental standards, and who offer their employees little or no health care. Yet we are considering a trade agreement right now that asks us to do just that. And though the CAFTA countries are not large enough to impact our economy significantly, the precedent set by agreements like CAFTA--and the attitude among our trade negotiators that CAFTA reveals--will. We are the strongest economy in the world and can and should be able to compete and prosper in a global marketplace. But we will not if we continue to sign up for trade agreements that allow other countries to undercut us by producing goods using underpaid, abused labor and unacceptable environmental practices. I urge my colleagues to reject CAFTA--and reject the misguided, eventually disastrous trade policy it represents.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2005, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important health and safety information from the public. This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in products liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The plaintiff has limited resources and faces a corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of money on delay tactics. Facing a formidable opponent, plaintiffs are discouraged from continuing and often seek to settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the litigation. While the plaintiff gets a respectable award and the defendant is able to keep damaging information from getting out, others are forced to pay the price. Because they remain unaware of critical public health and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American public incurs the greatest cost. Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders when ``good cause'' is shown. Too much discretion, however, can sometimes lead to abuse. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American public. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company information. Our legislation makes sure such information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public to protect a company's reputation or profit margin. The most famous case of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone. From 1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires were causing accidents across the country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late; too many unnecessary injuries and deaths had already occurred. If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were just an aberration, maybe there would be no cause for concern. But, unfortunately, the list goes on. In January 2004, Jodie Lane was walking her dog in Manhattan when she slipped and fell on a Con Edison cable cover. She was electrocuted and killed. It has since been discovered that Con Edison has settled eleven similar cases, all involving secrecy agreements. Then there is the case of General Motors (``GM''). Although an internal memo suggests that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued. There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone and Con Edison, secrecy agreements had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork- Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products to remain in the market. And those are only the ones we know about. While some States have already begun to move in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies. This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act, also referred to as Kevin's Law. Foodborne disease is a very serious concern for American consumers. According to CDC estimates, 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths occur each year in the United States from foodborne diseases; sadly, the majority of these fatal incidents involve children. Barbara Kowalcyk, a constituent of mine, has been a true pioneer in fighting to protect Americans from the harmful effects of food pathogens. Mother to 2\1/2\-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, Barbara's dedication stems from personal tragedy. Barbara went through what no mother should have to go through; she watched in agony as the life faded out of her little boy. Kevin died from an E. Coli infection before he even had the chance to step foot into a kindergarten classroom. Eager to ensure that no other parent suffers as she has, Barbara has become a thoughtful advocate for tougher food-safety laws. She has worked with me personally on the issue, and through her involvement with STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority. Barbara has been instrumental in educating policy makers about the threat of foodborne diseases such as E. Coli and Salmonella. Barbara's testimony in front of the Committee on Review of the Use of Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards for Safe Food at the National Academy of Sciences helped the NAS write its 2003 report Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food. Barbara realizes that these diseases are preventable, that we have technology and understanding to improve the safety of America's meat and poultry, and it is high time that we do it. Kevin's Law grants the USDA enforcement authority to enhance the regulatory structure for food safety. It includes key provisions that will allow the USDA to conduct scientific surveys to identify the foodborne pathogens that represent the largest threat to our public health and to set and update pathogen reduction standards to reduce the presence of these pathogens in meat and poultry. I applaud Senators Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this issue, and I thank Barbara Kowalcyk for her commitment to keeping American consumers safe from dangerous food products.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy bill. This country needs a coherent policy to meet the growing demand for energy that comes with economic growth. America needs a supply of affordable, reliable energy. We need an Energy bill that will give us lower prices, a cleaner environment, greater consumer protection and I believe this current version of the Senate Energy bill does just that. We in Congress have had an opportunity to craft a far-reaching and progressive energy policy for this country. I believe we owe it to the American people to put together a well balanced plan that meets the needs of everyone, consumers and industry alike, instead of playing favorites and leaving the taxpayers with the bill. Unlike the House version, I am pleased that the Senate version of the Energy bill does not give the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE liability protection from environmental lawsuits. In the past MTBE has been a very contentious issue in the Energy bill, but I am optimistic that the Senate and House can garner an agreement on the MTBE provision. . I support alternative energy development and I believe this legislation provides the necessary incentives for the development of alternative forms of energy. The bill protects the economic and environmental health of our country by encouraging the use of alternative power sources, including solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, geothermal, and other renewable energy resources. By including a ten percent Renewable Portfolio Standard for utilities, the Senate took a bold step toward the promotion of clean, sustainable energy. I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. Recent events in the Middle East, coupled with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, have only increased the need for such a comprehensive policy. Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our economic security at great risk. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of our national oil use and one-third of our trade deficit. In addition, the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air pollution, and acid rain. For these reasons I supported a strong ethanol mandate in the bill, to help improve our energy independence and help clean the environment. This legislation, which I voted for, is not the perfect answer for solving our energy problems in this county. Few pieces of legislation that we vote on are, but I believe this legislation takes the right steps in helping our country move toward a more self-sufficient and well balanced society for our energy needs.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to offer, with Senator DeWine, an amendment which will authorize our Government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. Indeed, it is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. This amendment, identical to our NOPEC bill, which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously three times over the past 5 years, most recently this past April, will enable our Government to hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law for illegal conduct in limiting supply and fixing prices in violation of the most basic prices of free competition. Let me tell you what our amendment does and what it does not do. What it does is it simply authorizes our Government to take legal action against OPEC member nations to participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply or fix the price of oil. But this amendment will not require the Government to bring legal action against OPEC member nations. This decision will remain entirely in the discretion of the executive branch. Private suits are not authorized. All our amendment will do is give our law enforcement agencies a tool to employ against the OPEC oil cartel. The decision whether to use this tool will be entirely up to the administration. They can use this tool as often as they see fit, however they see fit to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions, or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other considerations that warrant it. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation, and we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our Government has not hesitated to do so when faced with the clear evidence of anticompetitive conduct that harms American consumers. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price-fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of sovereign immunity to escape accountability for their price fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, however, already recognizes that the commercial activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit as OPEC nations do. The suffering of consumers across our country in the last year demonstrates yet again that this legislation is necessary. Our amendment will have, at a minimum, a deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. It will force OPEC member nations to face substantial and real antitrust sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct. Before yielding the floor, I want to express my gratitude to my good friend and colleague, Senator DeWine, for all his efforts over the past 5 years on this important measure. I also wish to thank the many cosponsors who have joined us on this amendment, including the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the Cantwell energy security amendment, which would set a national goal of reducing projected imports of foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025 in the United States. I strongly believe we must be more proactive in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and Senator Cantwell's amendment is a great start to accomplishing that goal. The current path we are on is detrimental to numerous facets of our economy, environment and national security. This is due to the ongoing instability in the Middle East, which is where the vast majority of our oil comes from, and coupled with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil fuels. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of our national oil use and one-third of our trade deficit. In addition, the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air pollution, and acid rain. In order to achieve this ambitious plan we will have to implement many comprehensive energy saving policies. Many people believe this amendment down the road could raise fuel efficiency standards on automobiles. There are many energy policies we need to pursue to achieve this ambitious goal. In the past I have not supported raising CAFE standards and I do not believe this amendment would require such a change. In order to make this plan successful we need to support the development of alternative energy, such as ethanol, hybrid vehicle technology and others. I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our Nation's energy needs and that is why I support Senator Cantwell's amendment to the energy bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would temporarily suspend the duty on fixed ratio speed changers for truck-mounted concrete mixers. In the past 5 years, the manufacturers of diesel engines have been subject to new regulations, including more stringent emission standards for diesel engines, which have increased the cost to make the engines. That cost increase has been passed onto consumers. This legislation would allow U.S. manufacturers to import the parts duty free and help manufacturers remain competitive and continue to provide high quality and affordable engines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would temporarily suspend the duty on fixed ratio speed changers for truck-mounted concrete mixers. In the past 5 years, the manufacturers of diesel engines have been subject to new regulations, including more stringent emission standards for diesel engines, which have increased the cost to make the engines. That cost increase has been passed onto consumers. This legislation would allow U.S. manufacturers to import the parts duty free and help manufacturers remain competitive and continue to provide high quality and affordable engines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today not only to show my support for S. Res. 39 but also to honor the achievements of Dr. James Cameron, the oldest living lynching survivor. Dr. Cameron moved on from his horrific early experience with racial hatred to found America's only Black Holocaust Museum. His life story and work are a source of hope and pride for many survivors of racial violence. 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 Dr. Cameron's two friends and beat Dr. Cameron severely. Dr. Cameron survived but spent another 6 years in jail for crimes he did not commit. Dr. Cameron has never let us forget the injustice done to him and to too many other victims of lynching and other forms of 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. Dr. Cameron's efforts to shine a light on this disturbing aspect of our history have 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. As painful as the exhibits in his museum are to view, they are a necessary reminder of the costs of racial hatred-- and of the apology we owe to the families torn apart by acts of racial hatred. Because of my great respect for Dr. Cameron--and because he has opened our eyes to the great crimes committed by this nation by not ending lynching--I am cosponsoring S. Res. 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. The history of lynching in America is an atrocious one indeed. Between the years 1882 and 1968, some 4,700 people were lynched. And though, over that same period, nearly 200 antilynching bills were proposed, none made it past the Senate. That lack of action is truly a black mark on this institution's history and legacy. An apology cannot erase our crimes--but an acknowledgment of the costs of our inaction is a first step toward ensuring we never again let hate and racism run unchecked through our great Nation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued opposition to the nomination of William Pryor to be a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pryor's record was extensively considered and examined by the Senate when he was first nominated for this position in 2003. After he failed to obtain confirmation, President Bush used a recess appointment to appoint him to the Eleventh Circuit, an appointment that will expire at the end of the year, and now has renominated him to a permanent seat on the court. I find no reason today to alter my earlier conclusion that his record of extremism makes clear that he falls far outside the mainstream, and that I have no choice but to vote against his confirmation. When considering a nominee to a Federal court judgeship, we consider many things. The nominee should possess exemplary legal skills, judgment, and acumen. The nominee should be learned in the law. And the nominee should be well regarded among his peers, and in his or her community. Perhaps most important of all is the nominee's judicial temperament. An appeals court judge's solemn duty and paramount obligation is to do justice fairly, impartially and without favor. An appeals court judge must be judicious--that is, he or she must be open minded, must be willing to set his personal preferences aside, and judge without predisposition. And, of course, he or she must follow controlling precedent faithfully, and be able to disregard completely any views he or she holds to the contrary. In the case of Judge Pryor, we are presented with a nominee whose views are so extreme that he fails this basic test. In case after case, and on issue after issue, Judge Pryor compiled a public record as Alabama's attorney general of taking the most extreme positions, often at odds with controlling Supreme Court precedent, and in the most hard- line and inflexible manner. Judge Pryor's views are outside of the mainstream on issues affecting civil rights, women's rights, disability rights, religious freedom, and the right to privacy. During his confirmation hearings at the Judiciary Committee 2 years ago, he assured us that despite these views, he would follow settled law and Supreme Court precedent. But he made this promise only after making extreme statements to the Committee and during his hearing and refusing to disavow other zealous positions that he has taken throughout his career. I concluded then--and do not believe differently now--that I had no basis to believe Judge Pryor could put his personal views aside and apply the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court. Judge Pryor's supporters argue that his record in the year since he has sat as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit as a recess appointee demonstrates that he is worthy of confirmation. Yet, in each of the decisions that his supporters rely on for this judgment, Judge Pryor joined unanimous panels in supporting results virtually mandated by controlling precedent. Much more relevant than Judge Pryor's short and temporary tenure on the Eleventh Circuit is his record during all the years of his professional career prior to his recess appointment, especially his seven years of service as Alabama's attorney general, as well as his testimony before our committee in 2003. And his record of extremism and ideologically motivated decision making during his years as attorney general could not be more clear. While attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor actively sought out cases where he could expand on his cramped view of federalism and challenge the ability of the Federal Government to remedy discriminatory practices. Many of the cases in which he took his most extreme legal positions were on behalf of the State of Alabama where he had the sole decision under State law as to what legal position to assert. These cases include his assertion of federalism claims to defeat provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act; his opposition to Congress's authority to provide victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court; his argument that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act; and many other cases. The extreme legal positions advanced in these cases were fully and entirely the responsibility of this nominee while he served as Alabama's attorney general. Of course, Judge Pryor has every right to hold his views, whether we agree with him or not. He can run for office and serve in the legislative or executive branches should he convince a majority of his fellow Alabamians that he is fit to represent them. But he has no right to be a federal appeals court judge. Only those who we are convinced are impartial, unbiased, fair, and whose only guiding ideology is to follow the Constitution to apply equal justice to all are fit for this position. Unfortunately, we can have no confidence that he will set these views aside and faithfully follow the Constitution and binding precedent. For these reasons, I must oppose his confirmation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It is unfortunate that the President has chosen to resubmit for our consideration this failed nomination from the President's first term. Both in her public record on the California Supreme Court and in her writings and speeches off the bench, Justice Brown has compiled a remarkable record of extremism, of ideologically motivated decision making, of intemperance in her public statements, and of a judicial philosophy unquestionably out of the mainstream. Such a record makes her entirely unsuitable for a life tenured position on the D.C. Circuit. Justice Brown's extraordinary views on the role and nature of government convince me that there is a substantial risk that her views and legal philosophy are so far outside the mainstream as to pose a very real threat to our civil rights and civil liberties. Her views on the role and work of Government in modern America are particularly disturbing for someone nominated to the Federal bench, and specifically the D.C. Circuit. Justice Brown has been nominated to what is considered by many to be the second most important court in the nation. The D.C. Circuit is unique among the Federal courts of appeals as the court that reviews decisions of the executive branch and the independent agencies. The rules and regulations reviewed by this court are felt by average citizens across the Nation every day. These include worker safety rules issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the rules of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the purity of the water we drink and the air we breath; workers' right to the minimum wage and overtime compensation guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act; rights to organize unions and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment under the National Labor Relations Act; and decisions by the Federal Trade Commission regarding deceptive or unfair trade practices that injure consumers. The decisions of the D.C. Circuit on these and many other subjects have a real and immediate impact on the lives of all Americans. Justice Brown's hostility to the role and work of government in modern America are particularly disturbing for someone nominated to the D.C. Circuit. She has repeatedly said that she views government as a negative influence on American life, contrary to the moral fiber of our Nation. On one occasion, she stated that ``when government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. . . . The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.'' On another occasion, she wrote that ``where government advances . . . freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized.'' She has also remarked that the New Deal era of the 1930s ``marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' Her commentary on legal theory is no less extreme. She has railed against what she sees as a judiciary that has distorted and misinterpreted the Constitution. She has stated that since the 1960s, ``we have witnessed the rise of the judge militant.'' She also claims that modern judicial rulings have caused the Constitution to be ``demoted to the status of a bad chain novel.'' She continues to argue in favor of long discredited and overturned legal doctrines which were used to strike down worker protection and social welfare laws over 100 years ago. Other examples of Justice Brown's thinking are equally troubling. She has contended that senior citizens ``cannibalize'' their grandchildren by asking for society's support in old age via social security. And speaking recently at a church on ``Justice Sunday,'' Brown proclaimed a ``war'' between religious people and the rest of America. We have heard nominees that have come before us before argue that they should not be held to their record because it merely reflects positions they advanced as advocates for their clients. This defense is not available to Justice Brown. These are opinions that she held solely on her own behalf, in her own speeches and writings in which she was advancing no one's agenda but her own. Her record on the California Supreme Court does not allay our concerns. She has been consistently unsympathetic to the rights of those asserting civil rights or employment discrimination claims. And, on many occasions, she has been the lone dissenter on an already conservative court. She dissented from a case which upheld a prohibition on an employee's use of hateful racial invective in the workplace; from a decision that held that a city rent control ordinance did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property; from allowing workers over age 40 to bring age discrimination claims; and from a case which found that sexual intercourse after a woman told her assailant to stop constituted rape. Her frequent dissents are compelling evidence regarding how her personal views affect her judicial decisionmaking. In light of this record, it is not surprising--but nonetheless telling--that both of Justice Brown's home state Senators oppose her confirmation, a virtually unprecedented situation for an appellate court nominee. An appeals court judge's solemn duty and paramount obligation is to do justice fairly, impartially, and without favor. An appeals court judge must be judicious--that is, she must be open minded, must be willing to set his personal preferences aside, and judge without predisposition. And, of course, she must follow controlling precedent faithfully, and be able to disregard completely any views she holds to the contrary. In the case of Justice Brown, we are presented with a nominee who has a well-documented record, in numerous writings and speeches, of views that are so extreme, and so far outside the mainstream, that she fails this basic test. For these reasons, I must continue my opposition to her confirmation to this crucial judgeship.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, once again, I come to the floor to voice my concerns regarding the appointment of John Bolton to an important office in this administration. This time he is being promoted to a Government position with high international profile, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. I believe his appointment to this post will harm our interests at the UN and hamstring our international cooperation efforts. Mr. Bolton, whom I opposed when he was nominated to be the Under Secretary for Arms Control, did not distinguish himself in his last job. His comments about the North Korean regime during sensitive negotiations almost derailed our efforts there. This is not just my opinion. After his remarks, Mr. Bolton's superiors recalled him to the United States and sent a replacement. This blunder is not the only black mark on Mr. Bolton's record. He also failed in another highly critical negotiation--our unsuccessful attempts to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear activities. Mr. Bolton also has publicly and often expressed his disdain for the United Nations--the very institution the President has chosen to send him presumably to represent us and pursue our interests. How can he do that when his public criticism of the U.N. has been, not constructive or thoughtful, but heavy handed and destructive? He has advocated not paying our U.N. dues and, in a moment of high arrogance, said he thought there should only be one permanent member of the Security Council--the United States--to reflect today's international power structure. Statements like these make our allies believe that we do not value their cooperation and effort--and perhaps Mr. Bolton does not. His remarks create ill will and make it harder for us to lead in the international community--and perhaps Mr. Bolton believes the United States needs to play no role in that community. He has a right to those views. But we in the Senate have a right not to consent to the appointment to the ambassador to the U.N. of a man whose views would, in my opinion, keep him from being able to do his job. There is an old saying that ``you gather more flies with honey, than with vinegar''. I am afraid that we are sending a big bottle of vinegar to the U.N., and it will attract us no friends. Diplomacy requires tact. It requires being able to use both the carrot and the stick, rewards and sanctions. Mr. Bolton seems to be focused entirely on the stick, believing that by wielding our power and the threat of force like a cudgel, we can bring the international community into line. I do not agree. Senator Voinovich was right when he said the United States can do better than John Bolton. There are so many bright, gifted people in the administration that would do a better job and be a better fit. I regret the President did not send one of those people to us for this high profile job. Mr. Bolton's presence at the U.N. will do little to build our prestige around the world, and may well hamstring our efforts in the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1760, which would name a Post Office in Madison, WI as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.'' This passage of this legislation is timely, coming shortly before what would have been La Follette's 150th birthday next month. Robert La Follette was born into a farming family in Primrose, WI, on June 14, 1855. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, he served as the District Attorney for Dane County. He would go on to serve the State of Wisconsin as a Congressman, the Governor, and a U.S. Senator. Throughout his career, he fought on behalf of the people, not the politics. He truly embodied the ``fighting'' spirit of the people of Wisconsin. As Governor, La Follette instituted direct primary elections, allowing the people to choose their representatives, rather than having the party leaders chose them. His reform efforts in the State, and his excellent speaking style, placed him in the national spotlight. In 1906, La Follette joined the U.S. Senate, where he would remain until his death in 1925. It was as a U.S. Senator that La Follette truly launched a national progressive movement. He protested the corruption of government and the influence of large corporations on political leaders. He argued in favor of women's suffrage, worker's rights and racial equality. He fought for economic and social reform to remove power from the few and place it in the hands of the many. La Follette's fighting spirit and drive for reform have prevented him from falling out of the Naion's consciousness. Nowhere is this truer than in Wisconsin, the State he served so tirelessly for more than 30 years. His legacy is alive in the people of Wisconsin, who so often embody his pioneering spirit of reform. His legacy is alive in the United States Senate, where we continue to fight for honesty in politics. For all these reasons, I urge my colleague to join me in support of H.R. 1760, to commemorate the legacy, and celebrate the life of Robert ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as passions rise higher and higher here in the Senate, I come to the floor today to urge that cooler heads prevail; to urge that the majority not take the fateful step they are contemplating; to urge that we step back from the cliff we are approaching, before it is too late. We have all heard the arguments for and against a rule change that has been dubbed ``the nuclear option.'' I will not reiterate those arguments here. But as someone who came to the Senate to get things done for real people, I have some experience trying to reach compromise on difficult issues. The heart of compromise is well known: one side cannot have all that they want. Yet the essence of the so called ``nuclear option'' is just that--one side wins, one party wins, one majority wins full power over who will sit on the Federal bench. The other side--the other party, the minority--is left powerless, silenced by a new rule that strips the minority of all power over judges. We all know that such an outcome is the opposite of moderation, the opposite of compromise, the opposite of bipartisanship. In short, the opposite of how to get things done in a way that encourages participation on both sides of the aisle. There is no need to go down this troubled partisan path on judicial nominations and my own State of Wisconsin has shown us a smoother road for more than a quarter century. In all those years, Wisconsin has used a bipartisan nominating commission to force all sides to act in bipartisan cooperation when selecting judges. During the administrations of Democrats and Republicans, and during the tenure of Republican as well as Democratic Senators, we have used the Commission and succeeded in selecting well-qualified nominees who have been easily confirmed by the Senate in every case. Using this process, both political parties have been represented--the minority does not get to choose the nominee, but they can affect the choice and have their views count. If we move forward with the proposed rule change--a change designed to bring about one-party rule whenever the Senate considers judges--we will silence a minority of the Senate and a majority of Americans. You see, the Democratic Senators in this body were elected by a majority of Americans. How will a majority of Americans speak up about judges who will sit in their districts, on the Seventh Circuit, on the Supreme Court, making decisions about their lives for generations to come if this rule change is made? People all across our country--whether in the majority or the minority--deserve better. They deserve to have some say over who will sit in judgment over them. And they deserve more than that, they deserve a Senate that is working to solve the challenges they face every day, challenges like the skyrocketing cost of health care which leaves too many without coverage and even more struggling to pay for the coverage they have, challenges like factories closing and jobs that pay too little to support a family, challenges like the need to save for retirement in an age of disappearing pensions and job insecurity. These are among the problems we should be dealing with today. So for the sake of those who need healthcare, for the sake of those working for too little, for the sake of those nearing retirement with fear and worry, I urge my colleagues to stop. Stop and listen. I hope you will hear what I hear, Americans asking for what they have always asked of the Senate--that it be a place where debate continues, passions cool, and compromise prevails for the good of all.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President I would like to explain my vote today against this important legislation, the highway reauthorization bill. I want to explain that my vote was against the unfair treatment of my State, and not a 5-year reauthorization bill. I support consistent and adequate funding of our transportation infrastructure) but I do not support a bill that cuts Wisconsin's rate of return unfairly. A safe and efficient transportation system is critically important to my State. In Wisconsin, the changing seasons require constant maintenance of our roads and bridges. In addition, we have an aging fleet of buses that are in dire need of replacement. A five-year reauthorization is necessary for sustained transportation planning; it will provide jobs, will ensure safer travel on our highways and roads, and will provide transit funding for millions of commuters. I have heard from the people of Wisconsin, and I know they support a 5-year authorization bill. I share their sentiments on the need for an authorization bill. I also share their sentiments on the bill the Senate passed today. I have spoken to engineers, bus drivers, road builders and businesses throughout my state and the message is the same--don't support legislation that would drop Wisconsin's rate of return. My support for this legislation would undermine Wisconsin taxpayers who deserve better than 92 cents on the dollar. A vote in favor of this legislation would set a dangerous precedent for treating Wisconsin unfairly. I recognize the arguments of my colleagues that the overall funding for Wisconsin will increase and I support the addition of $11.2 billion that the substitute amendment contains. The substitute amendment provides Wisconsin with an additional $147 million in highway funding over the five year life of the bill. These dollars are absolutely necessary in the State, and I urge the conferees to maintain the Senate level of funding. What the substitute amendment does not do, however, is greatly change my State's rate of return. Over the life of the bill, Wisconsin will still drop from an average of $1.02 to an average of 96 cents on every dollar the taxpayers send to Washington. The so-called equity bonus program included in the bill is far from equitable. It includes exemptions based on random criteria; it is a formula stitched together to appease the highest number of Senators possible, not to give each State its fair rate of return. I remain hopeful that Congress will pass a bill much different than the one the Senate votes on today. I hope that my colleagues will, in conference, repair the damage that is done to Wisconsin under the Senate bill. I hope the final bill gives Wisconsin its fair share. Given the great need for a 5 year authorization bill, I would like to support this legislation. Given its treatment of Wisconsin, I cannot. I hope that will be different when the Senate considers a final bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. This situation is not going to go away. I have grave fears that images coming out of places such as Ethiopia in the coming months may reveal a tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. And what is most troubling is that this may be a tragedy that we could have helped avoid. I will soon be sending a letter to the President encouraging him to consider other emergency authorities to address this dire situation. Specifically, we will ask him to utilize the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust to address this pain and suffering. I urge all my colleagues to join us in sending this message to the President.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, although I will vote for this conference report, I feel obliged to alert my colleagues to a serious flaw. This bill does not provide enough international food aid. And if emerging reports are correct, I fear we are about to enter a spring and summer of agony in some of the poorest parts of the world. This situation troubles me a great deal. Here we are, the strongest nation on Earth, and we are rightfully appropriating funds to maintain that strength. But with enormous strength comes a moral obligation to respond appropriately to pain and suffering. This bill fails to respond appropriately. When the supplemental was first considered in this body, Senator DeWine and I and others offered an amendment to provide a total of $470 million for PL-480 food aid. That may sound like a lot to some, but it totaled merely six-tenths of 1 percent of the total spending in the bill. Mr. President, $346 million of our amendment was intended to meet the U.S. share of world-wide food emergency needs as already identified by the U.S. Government. Another $12 million was slated to restore Food for Peace resources diverted to address the tsunami. Finally, $112 million was intended to restore food aid development projects that the United States has already pledged to other countries this year. It troubles me, and it should trouble everyone here, that we may not be able to deliver on those pledges. What a disturbing message that sends to the rest of the world. It says that while we may talk a good game on food aid, you cannot be too sure just where we stand when the going gets tough. The numbers in our amendment were not pulled out of thin air. They were the result of close analysis of the world situation. In light of new reports from Ethiopia, I worry that even the amounts included in our original amendment may have been, in fact, too conservative. Sadly, the conference reduced the food aid total to $240 million, a level that is well below a split with the level proposed by the administration and adopted by the House. I ask unanimous consent that an alert I received from several faith- based organizations about the situation in Ethiopia be printed into the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize one of our most prominent Wisconsinites, Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day--and a man who was a driving force for the way the American people and the world view the environment and environmental conservation. Gaylord Nelson was truly a pioneer who had the vision of starting a national day to protect and celebrate our environment when it was not politically popular. What started out as an idea in the early 1960s blossomed into a national day of observance with an estimated 20 million demonstrators participating in the first Earth Day in 1970. Today there will be an estimated 500 million people in 167 countries taking part in Earth Day. All over the country, Americans heard about the dangers of lead in our water and air, pesticides in our drinking water, and chemicals in our soil. An informed public brought pressure on Congress and the President to act. The movement that started that first Earth Day led to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund legislation. These are the foundation of our environmental law today, and they would not have been possible without the work and vision of Senator Gaylord Nelson. Senator Nelson entered public service in 1948, after serving 4 years in the military during World War II. He served as a Wisconsin State senator, Governor, and then as a U.S. Senator for 18 years. As Governor, he was known for conservation efforts and preserving wetlands long before those causes became popular nationally. As a Senator, he built on his environmentalist reputation to further issues including the preservation of the Appalachian Trail corridor and the creation of the national trail system. Earth Day also reminds us that we need to work internationally. We need to engage developing economies like China, India, and Russia to head off major environmental disasters. We are not on this planet alone, and we can no longer pretend that environmental damage around the globe does not come back to haunt us. Senator Nelson understood that lesson almost 40 years ago, and he has been teaching it to the rest of us ever since. The ideas of Gaylord Nelson are just as important today as they were 35 years ago. The progress that followed in the wake of the first Earth Day must not be forgotten. As a nation and as neighbors in the world we must continue to demand for higher accountability and higher environmental standards. Today is a reminder for all people to recommit themselves to environmental stewardship and to thank Gaylord Nelson for focusing us on how we impact the environment that sustains us--and the legacy we owe to the generations that follow us.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I rise today in support of the nomination of Ambassador John D. Negroponte to serve as our first Director of National Intelligence, a position whose importance to our national security cannot be stressed enough. After 9/11 and the failure of the intelligence community to predict the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, study after study has told us that our intelligence system is broken, and desperately in need of repair. We began the process of fixing our intelligence community in December, when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Arguably the most important part of that legislation was the creation of a new position--the Director of National Intelligence--with appropriate budgetary and personnel authority to effectively coordinate the fifteen different intelligence agencies. Eliminating gaps and ensuring that our intelligence agencies are working together is vital to winning the war against al Qaeda, as well as to our long-term national security. That having been said, the mere creation of this position was not a silver bullet. Many challenges lie ahead for the new DNI. Transforming our intelligence agencies--getting them to work together and share information--will not be easy. According to the Robb-Silverman Commission, turf battles are again emerging between the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and Department of Defense, DOD. These turf battles contributed to past intelligence failures, and if we are going to truly reform the intelligence community, we need to put an end to this. The key to a well-functioning intelligence community is to resolve these disputes in the best interest of the country, and not one agency or another. Independence and strong leadership are essential to the DNI's success. Good intelligence is vital to our ability to protect against the threats we face today, as well as the threats we will face in the future. That cannot happen without better management, a DNI to coordinate all of our intelligence efforts--to make sure everyone involved remembers that we are all on the same team, working toward the same goal. It is critical that he succeed in making meaningful changes to our intelligence community. These are high hurdles, but I believe Ambassador Negroponte is up to the job.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. This letter was signed by Republicans and Democrats alike. That is as it should be. Compassion should not be a partisan issue. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the April 13, 2005, Wall Street Journal that makes a very strong case why additional funding for these programs is necessary.

Mr. KOHL. The simple truth is that current funds are insufficient due to worsening conditions in the world. Those conditions include the ongoing conflict in Darfur and food shortages in the south of Sudan; drought conditions in Ethiopia; flooding in Bangladesh; infestations of locusts in western Africa; and ongoing fighting and refugee conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Rwanda, and Uganda. By far, the vast majority of spending in this supplemental is to support our efforts in Iraq. While it is important we show the world we are a strong nation, it is also important we show the world we are a compassionate nation. In his inaugural address, the President spoke forcefully about ending tyranny and spreading democracy. Everyone shares those objectives. We also know those objectives cannot be achieved solely by force or gesture politics. Instead, they demand a commitment to diplomacy and human compassion. I am proud this amendment has drawn bipartisan support. I am grateful to Senator DeWine and the other cosponsors for their help. I hope this amendment will meet with the approval of all Senators, and I ask for its adoption.