Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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. Our amendment increases the food aid amount by $320 million for a total of $470 million. This is not an arbitrary figure but, rather, was designed to meet three definite objectives. First, our amendment is crafted to meet the U.S. share of emergency food aid assistance needs that have already been identified for fiscal year 2005. Second, it restores funds for food aid development programs that are vital to end the cycle of starvation in the world's poorest nations. These funds were diverted to meet worsening conditions in the Darfur region of Sudan, and our amendment simply restores them to their original food aid purpose. Third, our amendment restores funding for the Food for Progress Program for commodities that were diverted to provide assistance to victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Mr. President, I have a letter from President Bush, dated January 13, 2005, and signed by 43 Senators. It points out the dire shortfall in meeting world food aid needs this year. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

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.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment increases funding for Public Law 480 Title II to provide food assistance to people around the world where the need is urgent. Senator DeWine joins me as a cosponsor of this amendment. I also announce that the amendment is cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Inouye, Landrieu, Murray, Dorgan, Coleman, Obama, and Corzine. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senators Johnson, Roberts, Dole, Lugar, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Nelson of Nebraska, and Hagel as cosponsors.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is in observance of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide where atrocities were committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. In April 1915, the Ottoman government embarked upon the systematic decimation of its civilian Armenian population. The Armenian genocide was centrally planned and administered against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. After only a little more than a year of calm at the end of WWI, the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and expulsions. In 1915, 33 years before the UN Genocide Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity. In 1923, the people of the region overthrew the Ottoman government and established modern day Turkey. Since its establishment, the Republic of Turkey has disputed the tragic suffering inflicted on the Armenian people during this period. Sadly, it is estimated that 1.5 million Armenians perished between 1915 and 1923. Affirming the truth about the Armenian genocide has become an issue of international significance. The recurrence of genocide in the twentieth century has made the recognition of the criminal mistreatment of the Armenians by Turkey all the more a compelling obligation for the international community. It is a testament to the perseverance and determination of the Armenian people that they were able to overcome one of the most egregious acts in history. I support this important annual commemoration of a horrible chapter of history so that it is never repeated again. Congress should continue to show support for Armenia and their struggle to set the historical record straight on this tragedy.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce the Imported Explosives Identification Act of 2005. This legislation would require imported explosives include unique identifying markings, just like explosives made here at home. Domestic manufacturers are required to place identification markings on all explosive materials they produce, enabling law enforcement officers to determine the source of explosives found at a crime scene-- an important crime solving tool. Yet, these same identifying markings are not required of those explosives manufactured overseas and imported into our country. Our legislation would simply treat imported explosives just like those manufactured in the United States by requiring all imported explosives to carry the same identifying markings currently placed on domestic explosives. This is not a radical idea. We already have similar requirements for firearms. For years, importers and manufacturers have been required to place a unique serial number and other identifying information on each firearm. This is a common sense security measure that we have imposed on manufacturers and importers of firearms. There is no reason not to do the same with respect to dangerous explosives. These markings can be a tremendously useful tool for law enforcement officials, enabling investigators to quickly follow the trail of the explosives after they entered the country. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, marked explosives can be tracked through records kept by those who manufacture and sell them, often leading them to the criminal who has stolen or misused them. At a Senate hearing last year, even FBI Director Mueller recognized the usefulness of markings, saying they ``are helpful to the investigator . . . who is trying to identify the sourc[e] of that explosive.'' Failing to close this loophole unnecessarily impedes law enforcement efforts and poses a significant security risk, and closing it is simple. This bill fixes this problem by requiring the name of the manufacturer, along with the time and date of manufacture, to be placed on all explosives materials, imported and domestic. ATF first sought to fill this gap in the regulation of explosives when it published a notice of a proposed rulemaking in November 2000. Now, more than 4 years later, this rulemaking still has not been completed. Just last week, ATF again missed its self-imposed deadline for finalizing the rule. Each year, thousands of pounds of stolen, lost, or abandoned explosives are recovered by law enforcement. When explosives are not marked, they cannot be quickly and effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes. Each day we delay closing this loophole, we let more untraceable explosive materials cross our borders, jeopardizing our security. Failure to address this very straightforward issue unnecessarily hinders law enforcement's efforts to keep us safe. Because ATF and the Department of Justice have not closed this loophole in a timely manner, it is now incumbent upon us to act.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce the Imported Explosives Identification Act of 2005. This legislation would require imported explosives include unique identifying markings, just like explosives made here at home. Domestic manufacturers are required to place identification markings on all explosive materials they produce, enabling law enforcement officers to determine the source of explosives found at a crime scene-- an important crime solving tool. Yet, these same identifying markings are not required of those explosives manufactured overseas and imported into our country. Our legislation would simply treat imported explosives just like those manufactured in the United States by requiring all imported explosives to carry the same identifying markings currently placed on domestic explosives. This is not a radical idea. We already have similar requirements for firearms. For years, importers and manufacturers have been required to place a unique serial number and other identifying information on each firearm. This is a common sense security measure that we have imposed on manufacturers and importers of firearms. There is no reason not to do the same with respect to dangerous explosives. These markings can be a tremendously useful tool for law enforcement officials, enabling investigators to quickly follow the trail of the explosives after they entered the country. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, marked explosives can be tracked through records kept by those who manufacture and sell them, often leading them to the criminal who has stolen or misused them. At a Senate hearing last year, even FBI Director Mueller recognized the usefulness of markings, saying they ``are helpful to the investigator . . . who is trying to identify the sourc[e] of that explosive.'' Failing to close this loophole unnecessarily impedes law enforcement efforts and poses a significant security risk, and closing it is simple. This bill fixes this problem by requiring the name of the manufacturer, along with the time and date of manufacture, to be placed on all explosives materials, imported and domestic. ATF first sought to fill this gap in the regulation of explosives when it published a notice of a proposed rulemaking in November 2000. Now, more than 4 years later, this rulemaking still has not been completed. Just last week, ATF again missed its self-imposed deadline for finalizing the rule. Each year, thousands of pounds of stolen, lost, or abandoned explosives are recovered by law enforcement. When explosives are not marked, they cannot be quickly and effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes. Each day we delay closing this loophole, we let more untraceable explosive materials cross our borders, jeopardizing our security. Failure to address this very straightforward issue unnecessarily hinders law enforcement's efforts to keep us safe. Because ATF and the Department of Justice have not closed this loophole in a timely manner, it is now incumbent upon us to act.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Public Health Week and its important theme of ``Living Stronger, Longer.'' Today, seniors are leading active and healthy lifestyles unmatched by previous generations. They are working longer, eating better, and utilizing medical advances that detect and treat illnesses before it is too late. But as our aging population doubles within the next decade, new challenges await us in ensuring that supply can meet an increasing demand. This week marks the 10th Annual National Public Health Week, focusing on Living Stronger, Longer. I am proud to join the organizations involved that advocate for seniors every day and bring vital issues to the forefront during this week-long public information campaign promoting long and healthy lives for all Americans. Public health advancements and new treatment options are enabling Americans to live longer and longer, but many older Americans still continue to suffer from preventable and treatable health problems such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. Americans can prevent and treat many of the common health problems that hinder the enjoyment of later years if they have access to affordable health care. I know that as I travel throughout Wisconsin, speaking to seniors' groups and individuals, I often hear their concerns about the rising costs of health care and prescription drugs. As the lead Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am committed to protecting seniors' access to quality health care and I am committed to making sure that Medicare is preserved as a vital health program for seniors. One of the key components to living longer, healthier lives is access to lifesaving prescription drugs. I have long been concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs, which can make it hard for Wisconsinites to afford the medicines they need to stay healthy. Today, Americans pay substantially higher prices for the same medicines that are far less expensive in many other countries. It is not fair to ask Americans to pay higher prices for the same medicines that cost a fraction of the price in other countries. That is why I support legislation to allow Americans to take advantage of lower drug prices found in other countries by legalizing the importation of FDA-approved drugs from other countries. I also support legislation to change a troublesome feature of the new Medicare prescription drug law that prohibits the Government from utilizing the tremendous purchasing power of the Medicare Program to reduce prices. I am also concerned about the rising premiums seniors are facing in the Medicare Program. In addition to lowering the cost of prescription drugs, I will also continue to fight inefficiencies in Medicare and work to make Medicare affordable and fair for all Wisconsin seniors. But there also benefits that are available through Medicare that seniors simply are not utilizing. In fact, one in three older Americans do not get all recommended screenings. In Wisconsin, only 44.4 percent of men and 40.6 percent of women 65 and older are getting the selected preventive services provided, recommended, and covered by Medicare. We need to encourage seniors to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to take the steps necessary to stay strong and healthy longer. We are lucky enough to live in the most medically and economically advanced country in the world, where we have the ability to protect our citizens, prevent illness and disease, and plan ahead for a more prosperous future. There is work to be done, but as long as we can work together, solutions can be obtained and Americans' quality of life improved for generations to come.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to this budget. As I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in favor of the budget, I am reminded of the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant. Each could feel only one portion of the elephant, so each came to wildly different--and wildly inaccurate-- conclusions as to what it was. Similarly, it is hard for me to believe that those who are supporting this budget are looking at the whole picture. How can they call this budget fiscally responsible, when it would increase deficits $130 billion over where they would be if we did nothing at all? How can they brag that the budget tackles the difficult issue of entitlement reform, when nowhere is there mention of Social Security and Medicare, our two largest entitlement programs? How can they refer to this as a blueprint for Congressional action, when it leaves out major spending and tax initiatives that we know the leadership wants to pursue: funding for the Iraq war beyond 2006; the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax; the multitrillion dollar cost of the President's plan to privatize Social Security? No one can defend this budget as a reasonable or complete response to the serious fiscal challenges this country faces. No one can defend this budget as accurately reflecting the priorities of our nation--for on those grounds, it is indefensible. The President--along with Alan Greenspan and countless other wise pundits--have focused our attention on the severe budgetary consequences of the coming retirement of the baby boomers. Entitlements are growing at an unsustainable rate--and the time to address their growth is now. Congress should act to strengthen Social Security now, rather than wait for the moment of crisis. Social Security can pay full benefits for another 40 or 50 years. After that--even if nothing is done--Social Security could still pay 70 to 80 percent of promised benefits. But if we act sooner rather than later, Social Security's long-term financial imbalance can be fixed through relatively modest adjustments. At the same time, we need to recognize that growing budget deficits will strain our ability to sustain not just Social Security, but other important programs like Medicare and Medicaid. We need to look at the entire Federal budget and act to bring these deficits under control so we can preserve programs that will put a strain on our budget in coming years. How--given the President's crusade to ``save'' Social Security with private accounts, given the coming retirement of the Baby Boom--can this budget ignore Social Security and Medicare? Not a dollar assumed saved from either. Not a penny paid back to the Social Security trust fund. Not even an acknowledgement of the huge cost of the President's plan to divert Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts. Either this budget is incomplete or it is insincere. I suppose we should be relieved not to see any provision made in the budget for the President's proposed private accounts. The President has chosen to make Social Security his top domestic priority, but so far he has only proposed the idea of private accounts, which he admits would do absolutely nothing to improve Social Security's finances. Borrowing to pay for the transition cost would add up to $5 trillion to the national debt. And because the President has taken all other options off the table, the private accounts would require massive benefit cuts to achieve solvency. Obviously, Social Security reform--or entitlement reform in general-- is not a priority to those who support this budget. And obviously, continued tax cuts financed with reductions in important government programs and with debt are. The budget puts on the fast track $70 billion in tax cuts--and not one penny of offsets. In fact, the Senate rejected Senator Feingold's amendment, which I supported, that would have prohibited using debt to finance this sort of raid on the Treasury. Instead, the Senate chose to expedite tax cuts that would disproportionately affect the wealthy. The budget facilitates the extension through 2010 of tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income. Nearly half of this will benefit households with incomes in excess of $1 million; in contrast, only 12 percent of the cuts will benefit families with incomes under $100,000. It is fiscal irresponsibility in truest form, to speed tax cuts through the Senate that will directly add to our growing deficit. In addition, the $70 billion figure includes permanent estate tax repeal. This provision, despite the fact that its true effect won't be felt until 2011, carries with it a price tag of more than $9 billion--$9 billion that will truly benefit the wealthiest Americans. And while the budget finds plenty of room to reward millionaires with billion dollar tax cuts, it nickels and dimes the government programs the average American family relies on. American seniors pay the highest drug prices in the world. Our seniors deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit that gets the best prices for their medication. But the Medicare prescription drug law actually prohibits the Federal government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. This is a missed opportunity and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Now, in light of the growing concerns over the rising cost of this benefit--more than $57 billion than originally expected--every effort should be made to save our seniors and taxpayers dollars. We missed a golden opportunity in the Budget today to accept an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor and require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the tremendous purchasing power of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to assist the private drug plans in getting the lowest price for seniors. The savings provided by this amendment would have gone to pay for deficit reduction. Unfortunately, this commonsense effort to lower prescription drug prices and reduce the deficit was rejected. However, I do applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for having the courage to stop the proposed $15 billion cut to Medicaid. Stopping these drastic cuts will ensure that thousands of poor families, disabled Americans and the elderly get the proper medical care they need. The proposed $15 billion Medicaid cut would have translated to a loss of $300 million for Wisconsin. It would be extremely difficult for Wisconsin and other states to absorb a cut of this magnitude while continuing to provide the level of services 53 million Americans depend on. Now, there should be a thorough discussion about how Medicaid can work better to serve low-income Americans. But we should never force arbitrary cuts in Medicaid without first taking the time to consider the future efficiency and operation of the Medicaid program. Medicaid is an essential source of health care for millions of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, and any changes to the program should be driven by informed, reasoned policy and not by arbitrary budget targets. I am pleased to have cosponsored the amendment that passed the Senate to protect Medicaid from these drastic cuts. We have a continuing responsibility to meet the health care needs of our children, families, and elderly. But--even with the improvement in the Medicaid policy, the cuts proposed in this budget do not match those needs. Older Americans Act programs are level funded even as our population ages and the need for services grows. LIHEAP funding is cut by $182 million as more families and seniors face higher energy costs. Funding for health professions training has been reduced by 64 percent at a time when we face health care workforce shortages. And funding for rural health programs has been slashed by 80 percent when rural areas are in desperate need of adequate health resources. Perhaps the worst failure of this budget--it fails our nation's children. This budget proposes the first cut in education spending in a decade. Yet again, this budget fails to fully fund No Child Left Behind, leaving the Act underfunded by $39 billion since enactment. It fails to set special education on a glide path to full funding--it is slated to be nearly $4 billion short of what was authorized four months ago. This budget should reflect our values and needs in education. It clearly does not. This budget still fails to fulfill our commitment to our veterans. The American people made a promise to our men and women in uniform that when they had completed their service, the Veterans Administration would be there to help them meet their health care needs. When we made that commitment, it was not conditional, and it did not involve high fees. Today we seem to be slowly changing the terms of service. We now say to our veterans that they will have to wait months for an appointment, and some veterans are of such low priority to the system that they may never receive care at all. I supported an amendment that would have bridged the funding gap between the President's budget and the funding level that the veterans' groups believe is necessary. Unfortunately, Senator Akaka's amendment was not agreed to. With that ``no'' vote, the Senate made a decision that some veterans did not deserve the benefits they had been promised. I am also disappointed over the funding levels for transportation in this bill. I am especially disappointed that the Senate did not remedy the shortfall in funding for Amtrak. I was proud to cosponsor an amendment that would have fully funded Amtrak's basic needs at a level of $1.4 billion. The President's budget zeroed out funding for Amtrak, providing only $360 million to the Surface Transportation Board--and that would only be provided if Amtrak is forced to shut down in the Northeast Corridor. What the Administration fails to recognize, is that ridership in other areas of the country has increased; in Wisconsin, this means that 540,000 used Amtrak this past year. To force these 540,000 people onto our overcrowded roads and airports would be irresponsible, and I hope the Senate will reconsider before the end of the fiscal year. While I am glad that we put the Senate on record opposing cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program, it is up to the Appropriators to decide whether to reverse the $2 billion cut in this vital program. CDBG and the 17 other federal community and economic development programs which the Administration proposed consolidating in the Commerce Department provide funds that are critical to meeting the needs of distressed and underserved communities. In my state of Wisconsin, at least 19 entitlement communities and many other smaller communities across the state are slated to lose millions of dollars if we do not stand firm and reverse this proposal. I also regret that the Senate has decided to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. In the past bipartisan group of senators came together to protect this fragile ecosystem, but this year we failed to beat back drilling. By using the budget rules in a new, and some would say questionable, way a place that had been set aside as too valuable to be spoiled by drilling was opened to potential environmental degradation. The real tragedy here is that the oil we get from ANWR will have no impact on the price of oil. There is simply not enough oil in Alaska to have any real impact on the worldwide price. We have decided to risk irrevocable environmental damage but gained no additional control over our thirst for foreign oil. Until we aggressively address our domestic demand for oil, we will never be able be able to end our dependence on OPEC. Following the administration's lead, the Senate Budget Committee allocated $187 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, budget, which is about $173 million less than what we appropriated last year. I am particularly disturbed that the Senate Budget Resolution assumes complete elimination of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, JABG, which received $55 million last year. JABG provides funding for intervention programs that address the urgent needs of juveniles who have had run-ins with the law. The same is true of Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, the only federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. The Senate budget assumes a $50 million cut to Title V--penny pinching now that will cost us dearly in the future. According to many experts in the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves three or four dollars in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime prevention programs supported by Title V? Following the President's lead, the Senate Budget Committee also drastically cuts the programs most important to state and local law enforcement. Congress appropriated a little more than $700 million last year in both discretionary and formula funds for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. The Budget before us assumes no funding for this program at all. Byrne grants pay for state and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs. The COPS program is another victim of this budget. The Budget assumes $118 million for the COPS program--that is down from $388 million last year. What's worse is that, within the COPS program, popular initiatives like the COPS Universal Hiring Program and the COPS Technology Grants Program are zeroed out entirely. We should remember that just three years ago, the overall COPS program received more than a billion dollars. Of that amount, $330,000,000 was for the hiring program and roughly $154,000,000 for the COPS technology program that helped fund critical communications upgrades in cities--like Milwaukee and Madison--and many other towns--like Ashland and Onalaska--across Wisconsin and the nation. Finally, the Senate budget assumes cuts in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, HIDTA, program from $227 to $100 million. The HIDTA program is a vital collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement to combat drug trafficking through intelligence-gathering and cooperation. This proposed cut in the overall HIDTA program threatens the future of smaller HIDTAs like the one in Milwaukee--a program that has been extremely successful in stemming crime. The downward spiral of juvenile justice and local law enforcement funding is a disturbing budget trend with ugly real world implications. As a result of the Byrne, COPS, JABG, HIDTA and Title V programs, we have enjoyed steadily decreasing crime rates for the past decade. But, if we do not, at a minimum, maintain funding for crime fighting, we cannot be surprised if crime again infests our cities, communities, and neighborhoods. That is why I offered an amendment with Senators Hatch and Biden to restore this dramatic loss of juvenile justice and local law enforcement funding. Cuts to these programs total more than $1.2 billion. Our amendment restores $1 billion of that--not enough to make these important crime fighting programs whole, but enough to keep them functioning and working to keep our communities and families safe. For rural America, this budget leaves so much to be desired that it's hard to know where to begin. If you assume the President's vision on discretionary spending is carried out, as this budget proposes, basic agricultural research will be slashed beyond recognition. Rural housing, rural development and conservation will suffer. Nutrition for kids and food stamps for the working poor will be on the chopping block. And the fundamental fabric of rural America will be put at risk. A budget is a statement of who we are as a nation. I do not believe we are a country that takes from the poor and sick to make the rich richer. I do not believe we are a country that steals from our children's future to indulge ourselves today. I do not believe we are a country that ignores threats to our prosperity and stability. I do not believe we are who this budget says we are, and I will vote against it. Let me make one final point. Often, we hear that it would be irresponsible for Congress to reject a budget. Not this year. If we reject this budget,--if we do nothing at all--deficits will be $130 billion less than had we acted. A vote against the budget is a vote for deficit reduction. It is also a vote for responsible accounting, for honoring our commitments to our seniors and our children, for compassion towards those who are hungry, sick, or just struggling to raise a family in an uncertain world. For that reason, I will vote against this budget, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Harkin amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, which preserves funding for Perkins career and technical education for the next 5 years. While the Administration has determined that Perkins is ineffective, I rise today to defend Perkins and highlight its proven effectiveness in my home State of Wisconsin. Perkins provides over $24 million in education and job training to Wisconsin students. These funds are allocated between the Wisconsin Technical College System and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Over the past 5 years, 97 percent of Wisconsin's high schools have participated in the federally funded Perkins career and technical education programs. This includes over 98 percent of 11th and 12th grade students, as well as secondary special students in the State. As the result of this investment in career and technical programs, 96 percent of Wisconsin students completing high school career and technical education programs graduate, compared to the State's overall graduation rate of 91 percent. The Wisconsin Technica1 College System and its 16-member colleges receive $13 million in Perkins funding to reach 25,000 students statewide. Students who qualify for Perkins-funded services are those most in need of assistance to ensure their future success in the workforce. Many are academically and economically disadvantaged. Some have disabilities, are single parents or have limited English proficiency. These students are provided counseling, disability support services, services related to increasing students enrolled in non- traditional occupations, remedial instruction, and transition services that help students successfully move from K-12 education to technical colleges and from technical colleges to the workforce. Our technical colleges have demonstrated success helping their students meet these unique challenges. Six months after graduation, 91 percent of graduates are employed with an annual median salary of over $30,000. Five years after graduation, 97 percent are employed making nearly $36,000 a year. These graduates positively contribute to their communities and meet the needs of local businesses. The loss of Perkins funding would significantly weaken our Nation's educational quality and economic competitiveness. This amendment is fully offset and provides deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Harkin's amendment to ensure that students in Wisconsin and elsewhere continue to benefit from Perkins to compete in the 21st century economy.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Snowe- Wyden amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for the lowest prescription drug prices in Medicare. Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world. Americans pay, on average, two-thirds more than the Canadians, 80 percent more than the Germans, and 60 percent more than the British. While drug companies argue that they need high prices in America in order to fund research and development for new drugs, drug companies spend more on marketing, advertising, and administration than they spend on research. Our seniors deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit that gets the best prices for their medication. But the Medicare prescription drug law actually prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. This is a missed opportunity and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. In light of the growing concerns over the rising cost of this benefit--$57 billion more than originally expected--every effort should be made to save our seniors and taxpayers dollars. This amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the tremendous purchasing power of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to assist the private drug plans in getting the lowest price for seniors. The savings provided by this amendment would go to pay for deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense effort to lower prescription drug prices and reduce the deficit. amendment no. 172

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to the budget resolution with Senator Hatch, Senator Specter, Senator Biden, Senator DeWine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Baucus to restore funding for juvenile justice and local law enforcement programs closer to last year's levels. Our amendment will increase funding for these programs funded by the Department of Justice by $500 million. Specifically, this money will add $173 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, budget, $200 million for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program and the COPS program, and $127 million to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, HIDTA, program. The amendment accomplishes this by raising the functional total for the justice allocation by $500 million offset in function 920, which gives the Appropriations Committee the flexibility to design the exact offsets. Let me briefly illustrate why we must put money back into these programs. Following the administration's lead, the Senate Budget Committee allocated $187 million to the OJJDP budget, which is about $173 million less than what we appropriated last year. I am particularly disturbed that the Senate budget resolution assumes complete elimination of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, JABG, which received $55 million last year. JABG provides funding for intervention programs that address the urgent needs of juveniles who have had run-ins with the law. The Budget Committee seems to feel that the JABG program is ineffective. An example from my home State of Wisconsin proves otherwise. Using Federal dollars from the JABG program, the Southern Oaks Girls School, a juvenile detention center outside of Racine, WI, built a new mental health wing to provide much-needed counseling services for the girl inmates. The administrator of this school cites a 56 drop in violent behavior since the new mental services have been offered. This is just one example of JABG's many successes, a record that supports keeping JABG alive and well-funded. The same is true of title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, the only Federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. The Senate budget assumes a $50 million cut to title V, penny pinching now that will cost us dearly in the future. According to many experts in the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves three or four dollars in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime prevention programs supported by title V? Following the President's lead, the Senate Budget Committee also drastically cuts the programs most important to state and local law enforcement. Congress appropriated a little more than $700 million last year in both discretionary and formula funds for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program. The budget before us assumes no funding for this program at all. Byrne grants pay for State and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs. Talk to any police chief or sheriff back in Wisconsin and they will tell you that the Byrne program is the backbone of Federal aid for local law enforcement. Do we really want to walk away from a program with more than 30 years of success supporting our local police chiefs, sheriffs, and district attorneys? The COPS program is another victim of this budget. The budget assumes $118 million for the COPS program. That is down from $388 million last year. What is worse is that, within the COPS program, popular initiatives like the COPS Universal Hiring Program and the COPS Technology Grants Program are zeroed out entirely. We should remember that just 3 years ago, the overall COPS program received more than a billion dollars. Of that amount, $330,000,000 was for the hiring program that helped provide police officers for towns in Wisconsin like Ashland and Onalaska. Another $154,000,000 was for the COPS technology program that helped fund critical communications upgrades in cities, like Milwaukee and Madison and many other cities, not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. Almost 3 years ago, I asked Attorney General Ashcroft him why the COPS program was being cut. He answered that that the COPS program was a ``good thing'', that it ``worked very well'' and that it had been one of the ``most successful programs'' we have ever had. I call on the Senate to heed our former Attorney General's words and restore funding for COPS in our budget. Finally, The Senate budget assumes cuts in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, HIDTA program from $227 top $100 million. The HIDTA program is a vital collaboration between Federal, State and local law enforcement to combat drug trafficking through intelligence-gathering and cooperation. This proposed cut in the overall HIDTA program threatens the future of smaller HIDTAs like the one in Milwaukee, a program that has been extremely successful in stemming crime. The downward spiral of juvenile justice and local law enforcement funding is a disturbing budget trend with ugly real world implications. As a result of the Byrne, COPS, JABG, HIDTA and title V programs, we have enjoyed steadily decreasing crime rates for the past decade. But, if we do not, at a minimum, maintain funding for crime fighting, we cannot be surprised if crime again infests our cities, communities, and neighborhoods. The budget assumes more than $1.2 billion will be cut from what it would take to fully fund OJJDP, the Byrne Grant Program, COPS, and HIDTA at last year's level adjusted for inflation. We restore $500 million of that, not enough to make these important crime fighting programs whole, but enough to keep them functioning and working to keep our communities and families safe. Though some of us would prefer an even higher increase, my amendment represents a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 214

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Smith- Bingaman amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to strike the proposed $15 billion in cuts to Medicaid and instead create a Medicaid Commission. In an effort to climb our way out of record Federal budget deficits, the Budget resolution we are considering this week will cut Medicaid by $15 billion over the next 5 years. This cut would be devastating to millions of low-income families, children, disabled and senior citizens who are served by Medicaid. I recognize that Medicaid--like all health care programs continues to face higher health care costs. But it is unconscionable to arbitrarily slash billions of dollars from a safety net program like Medicaid, and at the same time, give away billions of dollars worth of tax cuts in the same budget. The main problem causing Medicaid spending growth is not that it is bloated or inefficient. New studies by the Urban Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation show that Medicaid spends less, per patient, than private health insurance plans and that its costs have grown more slowly in the last four years than private-sector insurance premiums. The real cost driver in Medicaid is the economy, which continues to cause a strain on the ability of businesses to offer health insurance coverage to their employees. More and more employers are dropping health insurance coverage, pushing low-wage working families onto public programs, while the overall cost of health care continues to skyrocket. Cutting $15 billion from Federal Medicaid spending is only going to make matters worse by forcing the problem down to States, which already face severe budget crises. A $15 billion cut in Medicaid could translate to a loss of $300 million for Wisconsin. It would be extremely difficult for Wisconsin and other States to absorb a cut of this magnitude while continuing to provide the level of services on which families depend. A cut of this size has the potential to deprive thousands of poor families needed medical care and greatly increase the already record number of uninsured Americans. I do not object to having a thorough discussion about how we can make Medicaid work better to serve low-income Americans. But it is unacceptable to force arbitrary cuts in Medicaid without first taking the time to consider the future efficiency and operation of the Medicaid program. Medicaid is an essential source of health care for 53 million of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, and any changes to the program should be driven by informed, reasoned policy and not by arbitrary budget targets. I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful cuts.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today is a sad day for the environmental movement in this country. The Senate has taken the first step toward opening up the vulnerable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by using an arcane budget maneuver that will protect this provision from a Senate filibuster. Supporters of drilling in the Arctic, knowing they could not defeat a filibuster, have shoehorned a provision into the budget process that goes against the spirit, if not the letter of the rules. This is a shame and sets a precedent that will certainly come to haunt this Chamber. I oppose drilling for oil and gas in ANWR because of the irreparable damage that would be done to its fragile ecosystem that is inhabited by 45 species of land and marine mammals. I do not believe short-term economic considerations should take precedence over permanent damage to the environment. We only have to look at ANWR's neighbor in Alaska to see what environment cost drilling would have to this pristine landscape. At Prudhoe Bay, home to one of the world's largest industrial complexes, 43,000 tons of nitrogen oxides pollute the air each year. Hundreds of spills involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products occur annually. Decades-old diesel spill sites still show little re-growth of vegetation. Why would this be different for ANWR if oil companies are allowed to drill there? Along with the grave environmental impact drilling would cause ANWR the amount of useable oil is not sufficient to make a significant impact on oil prices. U.S. consumption of oil exceeds 18 million barrels per day, an amount higher than the yearly consumption for all of Europe, all of Africa, or all the States of the former Soviet Union. Based on the United States Geological Survey and Energy Information Agency, there are roughly 10.3 billion barrels of oil in all of ANWR's 19 million acres. Of this amount, only 2.6 billion barrels are ``economically recoverable,'' the equivalent of a 6-month supply of oil. In addition, the cost of the infrastructure necessary to transport the oil to the lower 48 States makes this a money losing endeavor for the United States. Supporters of drilling would have us believe that this oil will improve the energy security of the United States, but this is not accurate. The oil companies that will drill in ANWR have no commitment to sell this oil in the U.S. In fact, the oil that comes out of Alaska will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder. No one who supports drilling requires that the oil that comes out of our soil stay in our country. We should not be surprised then when oil from Alaska ends up in China, Korea, and Japan instead of Wisconsin. I think it is clear that drilling in ANWR will not provide enough domestic oil supply to minimize the control that OPEC has on the petroleum market. Insulating ourselves from the world prices of oil will not come from increasing domestic production. We cannot drill ourselves out of our oil dependency, there is simply not enough oil within our borders. Instead, the U.S. can reduce its vulnerability to oil price shocks by decreasing its demand for oil altogether. The way to ease the impact of high oil prices on consumers is to give consumers tools to reduce their demand for oil. Cleary this debate should be about alternative energy sources, such as ethanol or hybrid vehicle technology, and not wasting our time with an oil reserve were the costs outweigh the benefits.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting additional funding for passenger rail. As we all know, the administration eliminated funding for Amtrak in its fiscal year 2006 budget. I believe that this is a shortsighted policy that could strand travelers throughout the country, including those who rely on passenger rail in my State. I am supporting this amendment, which would add $1.4 billion to the budget for Amtrak because rail service is so important to travelers in Wisconsin. I have long fought to ensure that intercity rail service exists in the Midwest. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Wisconsin's secretary of transportation, Frank Busalacchi, who is currently serving as the chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. Rail makes up an important portion of our intermodal system in Wisconsin. In January of this year, a total of 37,445 passengers used Amtrak's Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago. That is 37,000 fewer cars on our roads, reducing congestion and pollution. So many times, when you hear commuter rail, we think of only the Northeast corridor. I want to assure the people of Wisconsin that I know this is not the case, and that I will fight to ensure that the corridors in Wisconsin are not shut down. I support reforms in Amtrak, and look forward to working with Amtrak, with the administration, and with my colleagues to enact meaningful reform. But we cannot move forward on reform if Amtrak has been forced to abandon its services in other areas. The Northeast is not the only region in the country that relies on a viable rail system--now is not the time to force the more than 540,000 people who used Amtrak in Wisconsin on to our overburdened roads and airports. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in support of the Kennedy-Kohl amendment. It would eliminate the most flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy system under current law--the unlimited homestead exemption. This exemption allows debtors in five states to purchase expensive homes and shield millions of dollars from their creditors. All too often, millionaire debtors take advantage of this loophole by buying mansions in states with unlimited exemptions like Florida and Texas, and declaring bankruptcy and yet continue to live like kings. Our measure will generously cap the homestead exemption at $300,000--that is: it permits a debtor to keep $300,000 of equity in his or her home after declaring bankruptcy. This amendment, with even lower threshold amounts, has been adopted twice by the Senate by wide margins in the course of considering previous bankruptcy bills, in both the 106th and 107th Congresses. As a result of my efforts in the past bankruptcy debates, the underlying bill that we are debating already contains a provision on the homestead amendment that gets at the worst abusers of this loophole, including felons. In fact, it will be the first Federal law ever on the homestead exemption. The provision included in the bill, however, while obviously better than the current law's allowance of an unlimited homestead exemption, is still not a comprehensive solution to the current abuses of the law. It would allow those who establish their residence in an unlimited homestead state more than 3 years and 4 months before a bankruptcy filing to shelter an unlimited amount of money in their residences. All it would take for a greedy or unscrupulous individual to take advantage of this provision to defraud his or her creditors is some planning and foresight. And it does nothing to stop lifelong residents of these states from taking advantage of the unlimited homestead exemption to protect their assets from creditors. A review of a few examples in recent years show how willing disreputable debtors are to engage in such planning to hide their assets. Let me give you just a few of the many examples: John Porter, WorldCom's cofounder and former Chairman, bought a 10,000 square-foot ocean front estate in Palm Beach, Florida in 1998, a home featured on the cover of the November 2004 issue of Luxury Homes magazine, and now worth nearly $17 million. The IRS says he owes more than $25 million for back taxes, and he is the defendant in several multi-million dollar securities fraud lawsuits resulting from the failure of WorldCom. Porter filed for bankruptcy in May 2004. Florida's homestead exemption allows Porter to keep most of the value of the house. The former Executive Vice President of Conseco has sought to avoid repaying $65 million in loans from Conseco by selling 90% of her and her husband's assets and buying a $10 million home on Sunset Island in Miami Beach, FL. In 2001, Paul Bilzerian--a convicted felon--tried to wipe out $140 million in debts and all the while holding on to his 37,000 square foot Florida mansion worth over $5 million-- with its 10 bedrooms, two libraries, double gourmet kitchen, racquetball court, indoor basketball court, movie theater, full weight and exercise rooms, and swimming pool. The owner of a failed Ohio Savings and Loan, who was convicted of securities fraud, wrote off most of $300 million in debts, but still held on to the multi-million dollar ranch he bought in Florida. Movie star Burt Reynolds wrote off over $8 million in debt through bankruptcy, but still held onto his $2.5 million Florida estate. Sadly, those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Several years ago, we asked the GAO to study this problem. At that time, they estimated that 400 homeowners in Florida and Texas--all with over $100,000 in home equity--profited from this unlimited exemption each year. And while they continued to live in luxury, they wrote off an estimated $120 million owed to honest creditors. This is not only wrong; it is unacceptable. In stark contrast, in most States debtors may keep only a reasonable amount of the equity they have in their homes. For example, in my home State of Wisconsin, when a person declares bankruptcy, he or she may keep only $40,000 of the value of their home. This permits creditors access to any additional funds that could be used to repay outstanding loans, yet allows the debtor to preserve $40,000 which is more than enough for a fresh start. Most States reasonably cap their homestead exemptions at $40,000 or less. The bankruptcy reform bill is intended to wipe out abuse by debtors who run up large bills and then use the bankruptcy laws as a method of financial planning. Our amendment does exactly that. Unlike the compromise version currently in S. 256, this amendment completely closes this inexcusable loophole that allows too many debtors to keep their luxury homes, while their legitimate creditors-- like kids owed child support, ex-spouses owed alimony, state governments, small businesses and banks--get left out in the cold. While the unlimited homestead exemption may not be the most common abuse of the bankruptcy system, it is clearly the most egregious. If we really want to restore the stigma attached to bankruptcy, these high profile cases are the best place to start. In both the 106th and 107th Congresses, an overwhelming number of our colleagues agreed with us and voted to cap the homestead exemption by wide margins. In the 106th Congress, this proposal was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 76-22. In the 107th Congress, a motion to table this proposal was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 60 to 39, and this amendment was then adopted by voice vote. The vote this year is exactly the same as the one in the 106th and 107th Congresses. If you were against rich debtors avoiding their creditors the last two times, then you should be against rich debtors avoiding their creditors this time. The simple hard cap that we propose with this amendment is not only the best policy; it also sends the best message: bankruptcy is a tool of last resort, not financial planning. Even though I would prefer that this amendment include an exemption for family farmers, it does address the need to go after the worst abusers, no matter how wealthy. In closing, we should remember that one of the central principles of the bankruptcy bill is that people who can pay part of their debts should be required to do so. But the call to reform rings hollow when the bill creates an elaborate, taxpayer funded system to squeeze an extra $100 a month out of middle class debtors and yet allows people like Burt Reynolds to declare bankruptcy, wipe out $8 million in debt, and still hold on to a $2.5 million Florida mansion. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator DeWine and 11 co-sponsors, of the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (``NOPEC''). 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 bill will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. Our bill will authorize the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will expressly specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. Senator DeWine and I have introduced this bill in each of the last three Congresses. This legislation was the subject of an extensive hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee last year, and subsequently passed the Judiciary Committee without dissent. It is now time, in this new Congress, to finally pass this legislation into law and give our nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy. Throughout the last year, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices exceeded $40, then $50 and then $55 per barrel, retail prices of gasoline over $2.00 per gallon became commonplace. While prices temporarily receded for short periods, the general trend was significantly upwards, and rising even today. We now hear predictions that the price of crude oil may soon break the $60 barrier, and oil industry analysts even say $80 per barrel is not unthinkable. And one fact has remained consistent--any move downwards in price would end as soon as OPEC decided to cut production. The price of crude oil danced to the tune set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating bills. We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this issue, Senator DeWine and I have repeatedly asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these allegations. As a result of our requests, the FTC has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices. And we conducted our own inquiry in the Antitrust Subcommittee last year which found no basis to challenge the FTC's conclusions. But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. Our bill will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. The bill will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our bill will overrule one twenty-year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our antitrust authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price- fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior. Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. 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, though, 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 the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will establish that the sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law. The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last year has made me more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's repeated decisions to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator DeWine and 11 co-sponsors, of the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005 (``NOPEC''). 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 bill will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. Our bill will authorize the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will expressly specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. Senator DeWine and I have introduced this bill in each of the last three Congresses. This legislation was the subject of an extensive hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee last year, and subsequently passed the Judiciary Committee without dissent. It is now time, in this new Congress, to finally pass this legislation into law and give our nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy. Throughout the last year, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices exceeded $40, then $50 and then $55 per barrel, retail prices of gasoline over $2.00 per gallon became commonplace. While prices temporarily receded for short periods, the general trend was significantly upwards, and rising even today. We now hear predictions that the price of crude oil may soon break the $60 barrier, and oil industry analysts even say $80 per barrel is not unthinkable. And one fact has remained consistent--any move downwards in price would end as soon as OPEC decided to cut production. The price of crude oil danced to the tune set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating bills. We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this issue, Senator DeWine and I have repeatedly asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these allegations. As a result of our requests, the FTC has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices. And we conducted our own inquiry in the Antitrust Subcommittee last year which found no basis to challenge the FTC's conclusions. But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. Our bill will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. The bill will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our bill will overrule one twenty-year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our antitrust authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price- fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior. Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. 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, though, 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 the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will establish that the sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law. The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last year has made me more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's repeated decisions to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Peace Corps during National Peace Corps Week-- February 28 through March 6. For 44 years, the Peace Corps has engaged in meaningful work and made innumerable contributions to both America and the countries served by Corps members. Today, more than 2,700 Peace Corps volunteers are working to train men and women in 72 countries to provide for their own needs, as well as to promote mutual understanding between Americans and other cultures. It gives me great pride to know that the Peace Corps and the people of Wisconsin have a strong relationship. Right now, there are 289 Peace Corps volunteers from Wisconsin, including 137 volunteers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison--more volunteers than any other university in the Nation. The State of Wisconsin can also be proud that the university served as a training ground for many groups bound for service in the early years of the Peace Corps. To better illustrate the work that Wisconsinites do for the Peace Corps, I would like to share this story of great accomplishment. In August 2004, for the first time, the Peace Corps honored returned volunteers with an award recognizing efforts to promote a better understanding by Americans of other cultures. This award was presented to the Returned Peace Corps Volunteers of the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Since 1987, the group has raised money by selling calendars with pictures of Peace Corps experiences from around the world. The money is used to promote grassroots projects in countries where the volunteers served. The group also works to raise awareness about the Peace Corps and participates in charity events. This story is both an inspiration and a call to further service. The $98,000 that the Returned Peace Corp Volunteers of Wisconsin-Madison donated over a 2-year period to the Peace Corps Partnership Program is a wonderful and meaningful achievement. It is my hope that other people in Wisconsin and throughout the United States will view these returned volunteers as role models. In closing, I wish to thank the 171,000 Americans who have served in the Peace Corps since 1961 and extend special recognition to the 4,409 Wisconsinites counted among that number. The work of the Peace Corps has made an extraordinarily valuable difference to so many people throughout the world.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a great and proud Milwaukeean, a courageous social pioneer and journalist and--above all else--a wonderful person. On February 17, Mattiebelle Wood's long life ended at the age of 102. Ms. Woods left a remarkable legacy in her field, in her community and in the Nation. Mattiebelle Woods was a tremendous woman, and I am proud to honor her life today. She was born in Louisville, KY, in 1902, and moved to Milwaukee when she was just a few years old. In the 1940s, before the days of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, Ms. Woods was already actively involved in the civil rights movement. Ms. Woods has rightly been called the First Lady of the Milwaukee press, and as a reporter, her coverage of social events and developments contributed to an increased sense of identity and unity in the local black community. By the 1960s, she had written for the Chicago Defender, the Milwaukee Defender, the Milwaukee Star, and the Milwaukee Globe. In 1964, she joined the Milwaukee Courier and contributed to its very first edition. Ms. Woods never stopped writing--her final column was published 1 week before her death. Ms. Woods also energetically participated in politics fighting for the advancement of the African-American community. She became active in the Democratic Party in the late 1940s, and worked persistently to ensure that elected officials worked just as hard as she did for the African-American community. To those who knew her, she will ultimately be remembered for her lively, beautiful personality. She instilled confidence and pride in countless young people and helped them build the connections that would help them succeed later in life. At the age of 102, Mattiebelle Woods still could be found on the dance floor, loving life. That love of life, along with her commitment to social justice, has undoubtedly been passed on to all those who knew her.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, a bill I am cosponsoring with Senators DeWine and Leahy. This bill will give the antitrust criminal enforcers at the Department of Justice a vital tool to investigate, detect, and prevent antitrust conspiracies. It will allow the Justice Department, upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, authority to obtain a wiretap order for a limited time period to monitor communications between those suspected of engaging in illegal antitrust conspiracies. The current Federal criminal code lists over 150 predicate offenses for which the Justice Department may obtain a wiretap during the course of a criminal investigation. These offenses include such basic white collar crimes such as mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud. However, under current law, if the Government is investigating a criminal antitrust conspiracy such as a scheme to fix prices to consumers, the Government cannot obtain a wiretap of the suspected conspirators. This inability to obtain wiretaps unquestionably severely handicaps the detection and prevention of such conspiracies. Only with the consent of a member of the conspiracy who has already agreed to cooperate with the Government may the Government surreptiously record the meetings of the conspirators. There is no logical basis to exclude criminal antitrust violations from the list of predicate offenses for a wiretap. A criminal antitrust offense such as price fixing is every bit as serious--and causes every bit as much financial loss to its victims--as other white collar crimes such as mail fraud or wire fraud. A price-fixing conspiracy raises prices to consumers, stealing hard-earned dollars from citizens as surely as does as a salesman promoting a bogus investment from a ``boiler room'' or, indeed, a thief with a gun. Moreover, by its secret nature as an agreement among competitors, such a conspiracy is likely harder to detect than a fraudulent offering over the phone or through the mail. A properly issued wiretap, therefore, is even more necessary to detect criminal antitrust conspiracies than other white collar offenses. Detecting, preventing, and punishing criminal antitrust offenses are one of the principal missions of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Such offenses are punished severely with corporations facing fines of up to $100 million and individuals subject to jail terms of up to 10 years for each offense. Indeed, last year we passed legislation raising criminal penalties to these new levels. Yet despite the damage these conspiracies do to the economy and individual consumers, our law enforcement agencies lack the one vital tool essential to uncover these secret conspiracies--the ability to obtain a wiretap to monitor communications between the suspected conspirators upon a showing of probable cause. This legislation will remedy this defect by granting to our law enforcement officials this necessary means to protect consumers and end illegal antitrust conspiracies. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lott in introducing legislation which is of great importance to millions of people throughout the country. The sport fishing and boating communities play a vital role in our Nation's economy, and I am pleased to be working with Senator Lott on legislation that will directly impact boaters and anglers everywhere. In Wisconsin, anglers and boaters are integral to the State's economy. Our access to the Great Lakes is only a portion of what makes my State an excellent boating and fishing destination. From the Mississippi River to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin encompasses thousands of acres of lakes and rivers; my State is home to more than 1.4 million anglers, and a destination for thousands of boating and fishing related tourists each year. In 2001, approximately $1 billion was spent in the State on fishing related activities, according to a study conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recreational boating is an equal partner to the sport fishing industry, with more than $526 million being spent in 2003 on powerboats and accessories. As a recreation for residents and draw for tourists, the contribution of water sports to Wisconsin is immeasurable. Today, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation aimed at giving back to the fishing and boating communities. This legislation, however, would not exist if it were not for the leadership of Senator Breaux, who worked tirelessly on boating and fishing issues during his tenure in Congress. In 1984, as a member of the House of Representatives, he worked with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, to create the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. The trust fund, commonly known as the Wallop- Breaux Trust Fund, serves as a collection point for most of the excise taxes attributable to motorboat and small engine fuels, as well as the taxes on fishing equipment. The Wallop-Breaux fund is one of the most successful examples of a ``user pays, user benefits'' program; the excise taxes that are collected into the fund are then used on programs that directly benefit boaters and anglers. The funding is then distributed to States for activities ranging from boating safety education to maintaining our nation's wetlands. I am dedicated to continuing the legacy of Wallop-Breaux. That is why Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that will reauthorize the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and expand the size of the Fund. The legislation we are introducing today mirrors the Sport Fishing and Recreational Boating Safety bill in the 108th Congress, which was later incorporated in the Senate-passed version of the highway reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the legislation was not enacted before the end of the last session. In addition to reauthorizing this important program, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that would recover approximately $110 million per year of excise taxes currently being paid by anglers and boaters. Under current law, only 13.5 cents is sent to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which is only a portion of the 18.3 cents that is collected on motorboat and small engine fuels. Restoring the remaining excise taxes will significantly boost funding for the important programs under the Sport Fish Restoration Act. In Wisconsin, this could amount to an additional $3 million annually for fishing and boating activities. I am very proud to be working with Senator Lott on this issue. Passing this legislation will be a top priority for me in the 109th Congress. It is an issue that I know is important to the people of Wisconsin: to boaters on the Great Lakes; to the Department of Natural Resources; to anglers on rivers and lakes throughout the state. I can assure every Senator that it is equally important to people in his or her State, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure this legislation's adoption.

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lott in introducing legislation which is of great importance to millions of people throughout the country. The sport fishing and boating communities play a vital role in our Nation's economy, and I am pleased to be working with Senator Lott on legislation that will directly impact boaters and anglers everywhere. In Wisconsin, anglers and boaters are integral to the State's economy. Our access to the Great Lakes is only a portion of what makes my State an excellent boating and fishing destination. From the Mississippi River to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin encompasses thousands of acres of lakes and rivers; my State is home to more than 1.4 million anglers, and a destination for thousands of boating and fishing related tourists each year. In 2001, approximately $1 billion was spent in the State on fishing related activities, according to a study conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recreational boating is an equal partner to the sport fishing industry, with more than $526 million being spent in 2003 on powerboats and accessories. As a recreation for residents and draw for tourists, the contribution of water sports to Wisconsin is immeasurable. Today, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation aimed at giving back to the fishing and boating communities. This legislation, however, would not exist if it were not for the leadership of Senator Breaux, who worked tirelessly on boating and fishing issues during his tenure in Congress. In 1984, as a member of the House of Representatives, he worked with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, to create the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. The trust fund, commonly known as the Wallop- Breaux Trust Fund, serves as a collection point for most of the excise taxes attributable to motorboat and small engine fuels, as well as the taxes on fishing equipment. The Wallop-Breaux fund is one of the most successful examples of a ``user pays, user benefits'' program; the excise taxes that are collected into the fund are then used on programs that directly benefit boaters and anglers. The funding is then distributed to States for activities ranging from boating safety education to maintaining our nation's wetlands. I am dedicated to continuing the legacy of Wallop-Breaux. That is why Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that will reauthorize the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and expand the size of the Fund. The legislation we are introducing today mirrors the Sport Fishing and Recreational Boating Safety bill in the 108th Congress, which was later incorporated in the Senate-passed version of the highway reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the legislation was not enacted before the end of the last session. In addition to reauthorizing this important program, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that would recover approximately $110 million per year of excise taxes currently being paid by anglers and boaters. Under current law, only 13.5 cents is sent to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which is only a portion of the 18.3 cents that is collected on motorboat and small engine fuels. Restoring the remaining excise taxes will significantly boost funding for the important programs under the Sport Fish Restoration Act. In Wisconsin, this could amount to an additional $3 million annually for fishing and boating activities. I am very proud to be working with Senator Lott on this issue. Passing this legislation will be a top priority for me in the 109th Congress. It is an issue that I know is important to the people of Wisconsin: to boaters on the Great Lakes; to the Department of Natural Resources; to anglers on rivers and lakes throughout the state. I can assure every Senator that it is equally important to people in his or her State, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure this legislation's adoption.