Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I want to speak on the miscellaneous tariffs bill. Last spring, Senator Feingold and I sent a letter to the minority leader making it clear we would object to taking up S. 2200, a bill granting NTR status to Laos because of the human rights situation there. At the time we said: Reports emerging from Laos remain disturbing. Journalists, human rights groups, and many of our constituents inform us that the Laos government continues to be responsible for serious human rights violations, and that conditions are particularly difficult for the Hmong ethnic group. The situation in Laos has not changed, and, in fact, over the last several months more disturbing evidence has emerged that now is not the time for us to appear to be rewarding one of the most closed and repressive regimes. For the first time, we have independent corroboration of the types of charges which have been made by many Hmong residents of my State for years and by others who have fled Laos more recently. On September 13, 2004, Amnesty International issued a report entitled ``Military Atrocities Against Hmong Children Are War Crimes.'' The report, which I will read from momentarily, details horrific crimes committed in May of this year reportedly by Laos soldiers. These crimes were captured on a graphic videotape smuggled out this summer and which I understand the State Department has taken very seriously, and they were also described by witness testimony. The attack took place against a group of children, five of whom were killed, in a remote area of the country, and was described by Amnesty International as follows: The 5 children, between 13 and 16 years old and part of an ethnic Hmong rebel group, were brutally mutilated--the girls apparently raped before being killed--by a group of approximately 30-40 soldiers. The victims--four girls, Mao Lee, 14; her sister Chao Lee, 16; Chi Her, 14; Pang Lor, 14; and Tou Lor, Pang Lor's 15 year old brother--were killed whilst foraging for food close to their camp. They were unarmed. A witness, who has subsequently fled the country and been recognized as a refugee by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reported hearing one of the soldiers saying: ``Hmong. Your mouth allows you to speak. Your vagina allows you to breed''. He then heard moans and a gunshot. A 14-year-old girl was shot in each breast and the other bodies were mutilated by what appears to be high-powered rifle shots fired at close range. One of the girls was disemboweled. Several other members of the group were seriously injured with gun shot wounds but managed to return to their encampment. The rebels have little if any medicine and rely on traditional treatments using plants found in the forest. It is my understanding that in the last several weeks, our State Department has delivered a demarche to the Lao Government, calling for thorough investigation of these atrocities which happened in May--an investigation that is credible and that would withstand scrutiny by the international community. To date, there has been no such investigation and the soldiers involved with these war crimes have not been held accountable. Also this year, came startling and deeply upsetting reports. Hundreds of former Hmong-Lao insurgents--many of whom courageously helped our military during the Vietnam War--and their families emerged from the jungles in Laos only to be captured by the Lao military and mistreated, and as some allege, killed. The emerging Hmong-Lao were under the impression that there was an amnesty program organized by the Laotian government, but there was much confusion about this program. The Lao government has officially denied there was such a program, they have refused to provide our Government with any details of this mass surrender of ethnic Hmong and their families, and they would not accept humanitarian assistance for the sudden influx of people seeking assistance. In response to these reports, Senator Feingold and I, along with others, sent a letter to Ambassador Negroponte asking for his assistance in urging the United Nations to send a high level UN representative or fact finding mission to Laos to monitor the treatment of the Hmong. I also raised the issue with Secretary Powell when he came to testify before the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee. Secretary Powell expressed concerns about the reports coming out of Laos. He agreed that there is a need for greater access and that more needs to be done to secure the safety of the Hmong. And, while Laos hasn't exactly been on the front burner, this spring the Secretary raised the issue of the Hmong in Laos with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and he wrote to the Lao Foreign Minister to express concerns about the reports related to the supposed amnesty. It is my understanding that there has been no reply to Secretary Powell's letter. So, here we are today offering a carrot to a government that has essentially stonewalled our Secretary of State and has restricted access to independent international monitors, leaving us with no way to investigate the many reports coming from Laos. I am aware that there are supporters of Laos who have raised questions about the veracity of reports of human rights violations against the Hmong. Because of restrictions put in place by the Lao government that deny policymakers, journalists, and humanitarian groups access to the situation on the ground, it is very difficult to confirm these reports one way or the other. More significantly, it is virtually impossible to ensure that these individuals are being treated fairly and humanely. That is why it is essential for us to keep the pressure on the Lao government to push for international access. Such access would be crucial in determining the facts surrounding the treatment of the Hmong and would allow us to ensure that they are not being mistreated. The sad fate of the Hmong in Laos has been exacerbated by their role in helping the United States during the Vietnam war. By 1963, as many as 20,000 Hmong fighters were trained and armed by the Central Intelligence Agency to fight against the North Vietnamese Army and Pathet Lao forces as part of the so-called ``secret war in Laos.'' Some reports put the number of fighters as high as 40,000 in 1969. The Hmong sustained heavy casualties during those years, working in coordination with the CIA. The impact on the Hmong community extended beyond the actual fighters: Family members lived under terrible conditions, throughout this period, unable to farm because they were constantly moving to keep one step ahead of the Communists. Since they were never in one place long enough to harvest, they had to eat leaves, wild fruit, tree bark, and whatever else they could find in the jungle. The United States is indebted to these former Hmong insurgents who rescued downed American pilots and disrupted North Vietnamese supply lines-- under the most difficult circumstances. We cannot forget these courageous individuals and their families. In the years since the end of the Vietnam war, thousands of Hmong have fled to Thailand, living a life of separation from their homeland and ongoing transition. Hmong have come to the United States, resettling in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. My State of Wisconsin is the home to 33,000 former Hmong refugees, many of whom are concerned about the status of their family and friends in Laos. And, last December, the U.S. Government decided to admit 15,000 Hmong-Lao refugees who were living in Thailand. These refugees began to arrive in June and they will continue to arrive through the end of the year. Estimates are that there are as many as 17,000 Hmong still live in the jungles of Laos. According to the Associated Press, about 20 Hmong communities are currently involved in low level combat against the Lao communist government, which came to power in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War. Most recently, there are reports that as many as two thousand Hmong have been under attack in remote regions of Laos by Lao forces using grenades, machine guns, and mortars. The scattered reports we receive are from those who manage to escape the area, those who call out on satellite phones, and the few reporters who venture onto the dangerous terrain. In October 2003, Amnesty International issued a report which stated that the Lao government is using starvation as a ``weapon of war against civilians''--a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Laos has ratified. The report indicated that the Lao military had surrounded several rebel groups and their families, including civilians, and was preventing them from foraging for food they need to survive. At that time, Amnesty stated that it was greatly concerned ``by the sharply deteriorating situation of thousands of family members of ethnic minority groups, predominantly Hmong, involved in an armed conflict with the Lao military in jungle areas of the country.'' Articles in Time Asia in spring 2003 underscored these charges, stating that the Lao government had hunted down and surrounded ``this dwindling group of outcasts.'' The pictures accompanying this and other pieces in Time have shown the Hmong in the jungle living in deplorable conditions. Beyond its treatment of the Hmong, the Lao government also has a history of particularly severe violations of religious freedom which have been documented by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in a report submitted to Congress last March. The Commission has designated Laos as a ``country of particular concern'' and has said that ``U.S attention to Laos at this time may advance protections for religious freedom and promote U.S. interests.'' I am sure that granting NTR was not the kind of attention the Commission had in mind. To quote from their report: . . . there has been extensive government interference with and restrictions on all religious communities. In more recent years, the government has focused its repression on religions that are relatively new to Laos, including Protestant Christianity . . . [Violations] include the arrest, prolonged detention, and imprisonment of members of religious minorities on account of their religious activities. . . . Lao officials have forced Christians to renounce their faith . . . dozens of churches have been closed. This persecution of religious minorities has extended to U.S. citizens as well. In June of this year, the Laotian Government arrested, imprisoned, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison a Lutheran minister, a U.S. citizen, from St. Paul, MN. While in captivity, he was denied consular access for over a week and was subjected to a so-called trial before the Laotian judiciary system. Although he was released after a month, Laotian Christians have not been so lucky. Some Christian pastors say leaders have remained imprisoned for years. As long as there is no pressure on the Lao Government, we can expect the status quo to continue. With all due respect to my colleagues on the Finance Committee, I have to say they have been surprisingly eager to grant NTR status to Laos. They have been so focused on taking this step in the context of cleaning up our trade laws and eliminating the distinction between those nations which have NTR status and those that do not have NTR status that they have forgotten that this is not happening in a vacuum. Whether we intend to or not, we are sending a strong signal to the Lao Government, and that signal is that they can act with impunity. I recognize there is strong support for the miscellaneous tariff bill that has nothing to do with Laos NTR, and that many of my colleagues are not casting this vote with Laos in mind. For many years, I have worked with others, including my colleague, Senator Feingold, to shed more light on the condition of the Hmong in Laos and to assure their safety, and I did guarantee I will continue to do so. Madam President, I commend to my colleagues a report on the CIA Web site entitled ``Supporting the `Secret War': CIA Air Operations in Laos, 1955 to 1974.'' The report is by a historian at the University of Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report from Time magazine of May 5, 2003, entitled ``Welcome to the Jungle,'' which details the deplorable conditions of the Hmong in the jungle in Laos. As one of the Hmong said, ``We shed blood with the U.S . . . they should remember us.'' Also, a report dated September 13, 2004, from Amnesty International entitled ``Laos: Military Atrocities Against Hmong Children Are War Crimes.'' Then a letter from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. And a letter dated March 15, 2004, to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, signed by members of the Wisconsin, California, and Minnesota delegations.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I honor the long and dedicated service that Tom Daschle has given to our country. He has been a true leader throughout his life in public service, and South Dakota and the entire Nation are better off because of his efforts. For 29 years, South Dakota has been fortunate to have Tom Daschle represent their interests--first as a Senate staffer, then as a Member of the House of Representatives, and finally as a United States Senator. He has worked tirelessly to make sure that the people of South Dakota have a strong economy, access to quality, affordable health care, and the highest quality education system. He has worked with unfailing determination to enchance the quality of life in rural communities across South Dakota and the Nation. Throughout his service, Tom has always kept the interests of his State and his constituents as his top priority. Tom Daschle has been a wonderful leader for South Dakota, for the Democratic party, and for all Americans. I deeply respect and applaud his lifelong commitment to public service, and his leadership and his friendship will be missed by many in the Senate. I know he moves on to the next phase of his career as a happy and wise man who will continue to make important contributions to our country long after he leaves the Senate. He is a true patriot who has always served and will always serve his country. I want to thank Tom for his dedication and his service, and I wish him the very best in his future endeavors. tom daschle

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the series of events which have brought us here today. The miscellaneous tariff bill, a relatively noncontroversial bill that has been making its way through the Congress for more than a year now, which is full of worthy noncontroversial provisions, has become the vehicle to pass a bill that is controversial, to say the least. At the eleventh hour, behind closed doors, the conferees on this bill decided to tack on a bill to grant normal trade relations status to the Communist Laos People's Democratic Republic, one of the few remaining Communist states on the Earth. For many years, I have worked to shed light on the serious allegations of human rights violations in Laos, many involving the status of the Hmong ethnic minority. By attaching Laos NTR to this bill without any opportunity to debate it and to consider it on its merits, we are missing an important opportunity to hold the Lao Government accountable. We are also missing an important opportunity to press the Lao Government to allow credible international observers into Laos and into the remote jungles where the Hmong ethnic minority live. We should not be proceeding to this bill in its current form. The Finance Committee could have easily stripped the Laos NTR provisions from the conference report and passed a clean version of the miscellaneous tariff bill. Then we could have had a real debate on Laos NTR at a more appropriate time. I will have more to say on this matter after the cloture vote. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture so that Laos NTR can be considered on its merits and not part of an omnibus trade package. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the passage of Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill accomplishes in large part what must continue to be this Nation's first priority--protecting our country from terrorist attack. This bill funds essential national programs which protect our borders, our aviation security, our ports, our emergency management assistance, and our critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants. In addition, the bill funds essential programs that do not only protect us, but also prepare our States and communities should we be faced with an emergency. These grant programs support our firefighters and other first responders whom we rely on in times of need. The State Homeland Security Grants enable the States to organize their first responders and communications systems to respond to a terrorist attack. Further, the Urban Area Security Initiative recognizes that our largest cities, such as Milwaukee, have special needs given their large populations that require more directed assistance. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to support the Homeland Security appropriations bill today and I am encouraged that we are doing what we can to protect our Nation. FEMA and faith based organizations

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. It has come to my attention that Section 886 of H.R. 4520, the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act, applies to the ownership of sports franchises. As owner of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team, I have serious concerns that this provision creates a potential conflict of interest. While I was previously unaware of this provision as one of the many tax simplifications included in the bill, I have decided to recuse myself from further votes on this issue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. The bill before us today is the result of tireless work by the Government Affairs Committee and its able chair and ranking member. It also reflects intensive consideration by other committees with jurisdiction over issues addressed in the bill, including the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees of which I am a member. The bill makes some important changes in the way our intelligence community is managed. It is a bipartisan bill which strikes a balance between ensuring that we have a strong national intelligence director, on the one hand, and that we meet the intelligence needs of the agencies which house our intelligence collection systems, on the other. The 9/11 Commission threw down the gauntlet when it released its final report, calling on Congress and the President to enact meaningful reforms that will help prevent future catastrophic terrorist acts. In painstaking detail, the commission made clear how the attacks of September 11, 2001, took place and how our government struggled to respond. They then made 41 distinct recommendations across a wide range of policy areas creating a framework for our efforts. We have a responsibility to enact as many of these recommendations as feasible. With the threat of terrorism still high, we must have the best intelligence at our fingertips, a robust law enforcement effort, and an effective homeland defense if we are to foil future catastrophic terror attacks. S. 2845 is an important first step. I believe the reforms in this bill fully implement the commission's recommendations on the need for a more unified intelligence effort. They address the lack of intelligence sharing among the 15 agencies which make up our intelligence community. Recognizing the limitations of the Director of Central Intelligence, who technically has the authority to manage all our intelligence resources, the bill centralizes the management and coordination of intelligence agencies by creating a national intelligence director or NID who has strong budgetary and personnel powers. The NID will also have the authority to create uniform classification standards and to set collection priorities. Yet the bill leaves the intelligence resources of each agency within their existing organizations so those agencies can effectively and efficiently meet their intelligence collection needs, so military operations and readiness are not compromised, and so we can maintain the diversity of views critical to sound intelligence analysis. Beyond a more unified approach to intelligence collection and analysis, the Commission called for a more integrated response to our enemies. As the Commission noted, our bulky national security institutions are still structured to respond to the Cold War. In retrospect, it is no surprise that they were unable to respond to a non-state terrorist network. By unifying the intelligence resources dispersed across the government, we are striving to create a more nimble intelligence apparatus that can lead our response to these non- traditional threats. To that end, this bill enacts the Commission's recommendation to establish a civilian-led joint command for counterterrorism--a National counterterrorism Center--to act on joint intelligence by integrating civilian and military counterterrorism efforts across the government and to serve as the President's principal advisor on joint operations. The NCTC will help address many of the operational shortcomings identified in the 9/11 Commission report. Intelligence reform is an important bulwark in the war on terror but it is not our only line of defense. Even if the intelligence reforms in this bill were in place before 9/11, they would not guarantee that the events of that fateful day could have been averted. That is why I supported the McCain transportation security and the Hutchison cargo security amendments. These amendments direct TSA to produce a national transportation strategy, to implement a system for comparing names of air passengers against the consolidated terrorist watch lists, to screen all air passengers and their carry-on bags for explosives, and to set up a system to screen air cargo. And I am pleased that we have accepted amendments that address the role of diplomacy, foreign aid, and the military in the war on terrorism. The 9/11 Commission recommendations in these areas have not received nearly as much attention as the recommendations relating to intelligence reform. I hope that we address these recommendations more fully in the next Congress. We must act broadly and on many fronts to put an end to the threat posed by al-Qaida and those who subscribe to its ideology. As we work to bolster our national preparedness in areas of border security and emergency preparedness, we must balance the privacy and civil liberties of individuals against our national security requirements. While some have suggested otherwise, these principles are not mutually exclusive, and I strongly believe that we can preserve both. S.2485 recognizes the importance of individual rights by creating a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. By providing the Civil Liberties Board with appropriate authority, the legislation ensures that its members will have access to the information they need to provide informed advice to the Executive Branch, Congress, and the American public as to how we can best protect privacy without compromising security. As we complete action on this bill, we are reminded of the deep sense of urgency that pervades our work. I appreciate that there are some in this body who wish we had taken a slower approach. Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations with a particular focus on intelligence reform. Witnesses, including Dr. Henry Kissinger, raised concerns, some of which have been addressed in amendments. The general sentiment of those hearings, however, was that we should approach intelligence reform much more gingerly. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time. Many of the reforms we enact today are based on recommendations that were made by previous commissions. These are not new ideas that require more study. The 9/11 Commission did us a tremendous service by creating a framework for action and by galvanizing the political will to enact these needed reforms. Finally, Mr. President, I want to hail the bipartisan spirit in which this bill was crafted. For too long, Congress has ignored the views of the minority at its peril. We have budget resolutions that represent the priorities of just one party and conference committees that do the same. It is impossible to address the problems of the day unless we put our differences aside to work on real solutions that have broad support. This intelligence reform bill is an important reminder of how much more we could accomplish if we would just work together. I want to urge my colleagues who will serve on the conference committee to maintain the bipartisan spirit in which this bill has been considered in the Senate. When the final version of this bill comes before the Senate, it should not go beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in its scope, and it should not include partisan provisions that jeopardize passing meaningful reform in this Congress.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce the Medical Device Competition Act of 2004. The legislation that we are introducing today is the product of perhaps the most important work of our Subcommittee in the last few years--ensuring that physicians, patients, and health care workers have access to the best and safest medical devices, devices that can literally make the difference between life and death. For nearly three years, the Antitrust Subcommittee has undertaken a thorough investigation of the hospital purchasing industry. This industry accounting for more than an estimated $50 billion in commerce is responsible for purchasing nearly everything that a hospital buys to treat sick or injured patients, everything from simple band-aids to high tech x-ray machines, from pacemakers to surgical devices. Much of this purchasing is done under contracts negotiated by what are known as ``group purchasing organizations'', ``GPOs'', large organizations that aggregate the buying power of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of hospitals in order to gain bargaining power and volume discounts from hospital suppliers. Without question, the goal of gaining volume discounts through aggregating buying power that led to the creation of GPOs is laudable. Unfortunately, our inquiry revealed that a system created to aggregate demand and hold down cost had sometimes mutated into a tool for entrenching market power of dominant suppliers, locking out competitors, and suppressing innovation. All too often conflicts of interest and questionable GPO business practices denied physicians and their patients choice of needed medical devices and robbed hospitals of the benefit of competition. Moreover, the power and importance of GPOs to our health care system increased as the GPO industry has undergone enormous consolidation in the last decade. As originally envisioned, GPOs were generally local or regional buying cooperatives each of whom accounting for a very small proportion of the market. Today, this situation is transformed. The two largest GPOs negotiate purchasing contracts for more than an estimated 60 percent of the Nation's not for profit hospital beds. The size and national scope of these large GPOs have turned them into the gatekeepers who can decide which medical devices doctors will use and which medical device companies will be able to sell their lifesaving goods.. Our investigation uncovered abuses and questionable practices that interfered with the GPOs' mission of buying the best products at the best prices. At the time our investigation began in 2001, it was all too common a practice for GPOs to contract with only one supplier of a medical device for lengthy terms. Industry observers also raised concerns over contracts which bundled commodities like hospital gowns with medical devices like pacemakers and surgical equipment, creating nearly insurmountable barriers for smaller manufacturers with specialized product lines to compete, regardless of the quality or effectiveness of their product. Some GPOs accepted high payments--so- called ``administrative fees''--well in excess of 3 percent from manufacturers. Worst of all, supposedly neutral contracting decisions were at times infected by equity interests held by GPOs or their executives in medical device companies. We can be proud of the work of our subcommittee--and, indeed, many in the GPO industry--in responding to this situation. At our behest, six of the largest hospital buying groups agreed to fundamental reform by adopting codes of conduct governing their business activities and ethical responsibilities. These codes forbid anti-competitive business practices, and ban conflicts of interest that interfere with the GPOs' mission of buying the best products at the lowest prices. The GPOs that agreed to these new codes should be commended for their willingness to engage in real reform. Thanks to these GPOs' good work and willingness to engage in reform, many of the most egregious practices began to disappear from the marketplace and barriers to patients getting access to the best medical devices more have begun to come down. Yet these reforms--as real and important as they are--have inherent limitations. They are completely voluntary and can be modified or even withdrawn by the GPOs at will. They have no enforcement mechanism nor any manner to objectively verify that they are being adhered to. We have no assurance that the reforms will not be abridged or abrogated should our subcommittee's oversight come to an end. We must now, therefore, find a way to ensure that these gains cannot be reversed. Despite their enormous influence, GPOs have until now operated with little, if any, governmental oversight. Quite the contrary, these GPOs have operated under special government protection--a Congressionally granted exemption from anti-kickback law. This exemption--commonly known as the ``safe harbor'' for GPOs--allows GPOs to accept payments from hospital suppliers even though these purchases are reimbursed by the Medicare program. Acceptance of these payments from suppliers would be illegal absent this special exemption. The fact the hospital purchasing has this specially, Congressionally granted immunity from kickback mandates that government have the ability to oversee the manner GPOs are behaving under the protection of this exemption-- oversight currently not required by law. We are therefore today introducing legislation which will ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services will have the authority to oversee the functioning of the safe harbor and prevent anti-competitive or unethical GPO business practices. This is moderate and measured legislation which is not prescriptive in almost all respects. With only one exception, it does not outlaw any GPO practices or business arrangements. Instead, the bill grants oversight authority over hospital purchasing to HHS, and directs the HHS to draft regulations to prevent improper GPO conduct--that is, unethical conduct, anti- competitive practices, or practices which preclude products necessary for patient care or worker safety from reaching physicians and patients. HHS is further directed to consult with the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General in developing these guidelines. Rather than micro-managing specific business practices, the discretion is left to the health policy experts at HHS, after consulting with the antitrust agencies--and only with the input of industry representatives through the notice and comment process--to develop the appropriate standards. We recognize that different GPOs have different business models, and the goal of this approach is to permit GPOs to maintain these models as long as they do not violate basic precepts of good business conduct. As long as a GPO does not violate these standards, it continues to receive the immunity from anti-kickback law granted by the safe harbor. However, the penalty for GPOs that violate these standards is to be ineligible to participate in the safe harbor--that is, being unable to accept payments from hospital suppliers. This sanction should prevent GPOs from reverting to unethical or anti-competitive conduct, and give HHS the regulatory tools to supervise the industry so that it serves the interests of hospitals and patients. The one area in which our legislation is prescriptive addresses a principle to which most parties on all sides of the GPO debate-- hospitals, manufacturers, and most GPOs themselves--have already agreed. This is the provision that bans GPOs from accepting payments from vendors which exceed three percent of price of the good or service sold. The intent of this provision is to forbid excessive vendor fees which can bias a GPO contracting decision. The decision on which product is placed on a GPO contract should never turn on the amount of money paid by the manufacturer to the GPO; rather, a GPO's only goal should be to contract for the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. Most GPO's codes of conduct already ban vendor fees higher than 3 percent; however, during our investigation we learned that one of the nation's two largest GPOs had accepted fees above 20 percent. Indeed, data submitted to the Subcommittee showed that during 2002 over 20 percent of that GPO's revenues was derived from contracts with vendor fees higher than 3 percent, a proportion that had increased from the previous year. The safe harbor should not shield such practices, conduct which has the strong potential to bias the whole system. In sum, we believe that our bill is a modest yet effective legislative approach to ensuring that the gains we have achieved over the past two years are not reversed, and that the safe harbor is administered in a way to promote innovation, competition, and cost savings. This legislation will give the authority that HHS needs to be an effective watchdog over hospital purchasing practices. Once this legislation is passed we can be confident that the reforms to the hospital purchasing industry that we have achieved over the last two years will remain in place, and that there will never be a return to practices that imperiled patient health and health worker safety, and blocked competition and innovation in this vital industry. The bottom line is that our bill will encourage medical innovation, ensure doctors get the broadest choice of medical devices, and ensure that patients will receive the best possible devices available. These are goals we should all support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce the Medical Device Competition Act of 2004. The legislation that we are introducing today is the product of perhaps the most important work of our Subcommittee in the last few years--ensuring that physicians, patients, and health care workers have access to the best and safest medical devices, devices that can literally make the difference between life and death. For nearly three years, the Antitrust Subcommittee has undertaken a thorough investigation of the hospital purchasing industry. This industry accounting for more than an estimated $50 billion in commerce is responsible for purchasing nearly everything that a hospital buys to treat sick or injured patients, everything from simple band-aids to high tech x-ray machines, from pacemakers to surgical devices. Much of this purchasing is done under contracts negotiated by what are known as ``group purchasing organizations'', ``GPOs'', large organizations that aggregate the buying power of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of hospitals in order to gain bargaining power and volume discounts from hospital suppliers. Without question, the goal of gaining volume discounts through aggregating buying power that led to the creation of GPOs is laudable. Unfortunately, our inquiry revealed that a system created to aggregate demand and hold down cost had sometimes mutated into a tool for entrenching market power of dominant suppliers, locking out competitors, and suppressing innovation. All too often conflicts of interest and questionable GPO business practices denied physicians and their patients choice of needed medical devices and robbed hospitals of the benefit of competition. Moreover, the power and importance of GPOs to our health care system increased as the GPO industry has undergone enormous consolidation in the last decade. As originally envisioned, GPOs were generally local or regional buying cooperatives each of whom accounting for a very small proportion of the market. Today, this situation is transformed. The two largest GPOs negotiate purchasing contracts for more than an estimated 60 percent of the Nation's not for profit hospital beds. The size and national scope of these large GPOs have turned them into the gatekeepers who can decide which medical devices doctors will use and which medical device companies will be able to sell their lifesaving goods.. Our investigation uncovered abuses and questionable practices that interfered with the GPOs' mission of buying the best products at the best prices. At the time our investigation began in 2001, it was all too common a practice for GPOs to contract with only one supplier of a medical device for lengthy terms. Industry observers also raised concerns over contracts which bundled commodities like hospital gowns with medical devices like pacemakers and surgical equipment, creating nearly insurmountable barriers for smaller manufacturers with specialized product lines to compete, regardless of the quality or effectiveness of their product. Some GPOs accepted high payments--so- called ``administrative fees''--well in excess of 3 percent from manufacturers. Worst of all, supposedly neutral contracting decisions were at times infected by equity interests held by GPOs or their executives in medical device companies. We can be proud of the work of our subcommittee--and, indeed, many in the GPO industry--in responding to this situation. At our behest, six of the largest hospital buying groups agreed to fundamental reform by adopting codes of conduct governing their business activities and ethical responsibilities. These codes forbid anti-competitive business practices, and ban conflicts of interest that interfere with the GPOs' mission of buying the best products at the lowest prices. The GPOs that agreed to these new codes should be commended for their willingness to engage in real reform. Thanks to these GPOs' good work and willingness to engage in reform, many of the most egregious practices began to disappear from the marketplace and barriers to patients getting access to the best medical devices more have begun to come down. Yet these reforms--as real and important as they are--have inherent limitations. They are completely voluntary and can be modified or even withdrawn by the GPOs at will. They have no enforcement mechanism nor any manner to objectively verify that they are being adhered to. We have no assurance that the reforms will not be abridged or abrogated should our subcommittee's oversight come to an end. We must now, therefore, find a way to ensure that these gains cannot be reversed. Despite their enormous influence, GPOs have until now operated with little, if any, governmental oversight. Quite the contrary, these GPOs have operated under special government protection--a Congressionally granted exemption from anti-kickback law. This exemption--commonly known as the ``safe harbor'' for GPOs--allows GPOs to accept payments from hospital suppliers even though these purchases are reimbursed by the Medicare program. Acceptance of these payments from suppliers would be illegal absent this special exemption. The fact the hospital purchasing has this specially, Congressionally granted immunity from kickback mandates that government have the ability to oversee the manner GPOs are behaving under the protection of this exemption-- oversight currently not required by law. We are therefore today introducing legislation which will ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services will have the authority to oversee the functioning of the safe harbor and prevent anti-competitive or unethical GPO business practices. This is moderate and measured legislation which is not prescriptive in almost all respects. With only one exception, it does not outlaw any GPO practices or business arrangements. Instead, the bill grants oversight authority over hospital purchasing to HHS, and directs the HHS to draft regulations to prevent improper GPO conduct--that is, unethical conduct, anti- competitive practices, or practices which preclude products necessary for patient care or worker safety from reaching physicians and patients. HHS is further directed to consult with the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General in developing these guidelines. Rather than micro-managing specific business practices, the discretion is left to the health policy experts at HHS, after consulting with the antitrust agencies--and only with the input of industry representatives through the notice and comment process--to develop the appropriate standards. We recognize that different GPOs have different business models, and the goal of this approach is to permit GPOs to maintain these models as long as they do not violate basic precepts of good business conduct. As long as a GPO does not violate these standards, it continues to receive the immunity from anti-kickback law granted by the safe harbor. However, the penalty for GPOs that violate these standards is to be ineligible to participate in the safe harbor--that is, being unable to accept payments from hospital suppliers. This sanction should prevent GPOs from reverting to unethical or anti-competitive conduct, and give HHS the regulatory tools to supervise the industry so that it serves the interests of hospitals and patients. The one area in which our legislation is prescriptive addresses a principle to which most parties on all sides of the GPO debate-- hospitals, manufacturers, and most GPOs themselves--have already agreed. This is the provision that bans GPOs from accepting payments from vendors which exceed three percent of price of the good or service sold. The intent of this provision is to forbid excessive vendor fees which can bias a GPO contracting decision. The decision on which product is placed on a GPO contract should never turn on the amount of money paid by the manufacturer to the GPO; rather, a GPO's only goal should be to contract for the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. Most GPO's codes of conduct already ban vendor fees higher than 3 percent; however, during our investigation we learned that one of the nation's two largest GPOs had accepted fees above 20 percent. Indeed, data submitted to the Subcommittee showed that during 2002 over 20 percent of that GPO's revenues was derived from contracts with vendor fees higher than 3 percent, a proportion that had increased from the previous year. The safe harbor should not shield such practices, conduct which has the strong potential to bias the whole system. In sum, we believe that our bill is a modest yet effective legislative approach to ensuring that the gains we have achieved over the past two years are not reversed, and that the safe harbor is administered in a way to promote innovation, competition, and cost savings. This legislation will give the authority that HHS needs to be an effective watchdog over hospital purchasing practices. Once this legislation is passed we can be confident that the reforms to the hospital purchasing industry that we have achieved over the last two years will remain in place, and that there will never be a return to practices that imperiled patient health and health worker safety, and blocked competition and innovation in this vital industry. The bottom line is that our bill will encourage medical innovation, ensure doctors get the broadest choice of medical devices, and ensure that patients will receive the best possible devices available. These are goals we should all support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the conference report passed yesterday by the Senate, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. I supported this legislation, which will continue tax relief for thousands of middle-class families in Wisconsin and across the country. Most importantly, this bill provides for the extension of the $1,000 child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent bracket. The bill also includes extensions important to business, such as the Research and Development tax credit, which expired in June of this year. Finally, the bill includes an acceleration of the increase from 10 to 15 percent of refundability in the child credit, a provision that helps the families who need it most. The end of the fiscal year is in sight, and the expiration of these cuts would negatively impact middle- class families throughout the country. I supported this legislation because I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to do its best to provide economic stability for hardworking American families. However, by passing this legislation, Congress is also failing in its responsibility to our troops. Under current law, many soldiers are unable to claim the Earned Income Credit or the child tax credit because combat pay is excluded from the definition of earned income. Members of the conference had an opportunity to permanently solve this oversight in current law--despite Democratic efforts, the conference report only solves the problem for two years. Without a permanent solution, men and women serving on the front lines could potentially see a tax increase in 2006. I believe Congress has a responsibility to these brave men and women, and I hope we fulfill it before the end of the year. This legislation is far from perfect. However, I believe that the benefits it will provide to middle class families across America are essential in today's economy. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I intend to vote today to confirm the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be the Director of Central Intelligence. I recognize the deep experience that Representative Goss brings to this position as the recent Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a former CIA officer and Army intelligence officer. I also understand the unique role the DCI plays in providing the President with intelligence and advising him on intelligence matters. Thus, I believe that on balance Mr. Goss's qualifications are sufficient to confirm the President's choice for this position. However, I want to express concerns about Porter Goss and the very partisan way in which he has conducted himself. His statements mischaracterizing Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry's positions on intelligence and accusing Congressional Democrats of being weak on intelligence are not the sort of rhetoric we want associated with the leader of our intelligence community. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified in the Appropriations Committee yesterday, the ideal leader for our Nation's intelligence community should be as non-partisan as possible. Mr. Goss has acknowledged that as DCI he will need to be non-partisan and objective if he is to provide the President with independent judgments about the intelligence he provides, and during his nomination hearings, he made a commitment to do just that. We must hold him to his commitment. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor today to speak of Porter Goss's integrity and his strong qualifications. He will no doubt be confirmed and will take on one of the most critical jobs in our government at a time of uncertainty about how his very job will be structured. The 9/11 Commission has made a compelling case for making major changes to the organization of our intelligence community. The new threats which confront us require a more cohesive intelligence effort that emphasizes shared intelligence over turf battles. To meet this challenge, we need a leader at the helm of the intelligence community who embraces the spirit of reform--even if not all the specifics of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--and who is willing to implement the reforms that all agree are sorely needed. I have no doubt that Porter Goss is capable of managing the changes that need to take place and I am hopeful that he will dedicate himself to these efforts.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Albert M. Deshur on his 90th birthday. I commemorate Mr. Deshur as a prominent leader, businessman, and philanthropist, who has long served the community of Milwaukee. Mr. Deshur, as a lifelong community leader and self-made man, has set the standard for integrity, pride, conscientiousness, reliability, honesty and character, while at the same time always maintaining a sense of balance through his earnestness and sense of responsibility to provide for the community around him. In honor of Mr. Deshur's 90th birthday, I acknowledge his many contributions to the City of Milwaukee. In 1948, Mr. Deshur founded the Deshur Homes company in Milwaukee, WI, where he currently serves as chairman of the board. Through his hard work and dedication, he has been responsible for master planning and developing over 2,000 acres of land, building more than 7,000 single-family homes, and developing many multi-family and commercial projects. Twelve years later, Mr. Deshur founded the Hampton State Bank, located in Milwaukee, where he served as president and chief executive officer providing thousands of customers a bank they could trust. His commitment to the city has provided the people of Milwaukee great opportunities that would not have been possible without his vision. Mr. Deshur has also been an active philanthropist for children's causes, including the Albert and Ann Deshur Rainbow Day Camp at the Jewish Community Center of Milwaukee. He is a prominent member of the Jewish community of Milwaukee, founding member and major benefactor of Temple Shalom and a generous and consistent supporter of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation for many years. I thank Mr. Deshur for his many contributions to the city of Milwaukee and I join his many friends and family in celebration as we honor Mr. Deshur on his 90th birthday. He is the very best Milwaukee and Wisconsin has to offer, and I wish him good health and continued happiness.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the writing appears to be on the wall where the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement is concerned. I suspect it will pass this body by a substantial margin. Still, I want to take a few moments to reflect on this agreement and what it may mean for Wisconsin. Wisconsin has about 16,000 dairy farms. Altogether, production and processing activities in the state generate close to $20 billion in economic activity. Dairy accounts for about 200,000 Wisconsin jobs. I could go on at length, but my colleagues already know that I care deeply about Wisconsin agriculture and the families who depend on dairy. And that is why I will vote against the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While the final agreement maintains over-quota tariffs on dairy products, I remain very concerned that the overall effect on dairy farmers will be negative, particularly as it affects cheese markets which are of critical importance to Wisconsin dairy. I am also concerned that this agreement sets up roadblocks for us to pass legislation that would allow Americans to buy less expensive prescription drugs from other countries. It includes a provision that protects the current right of drug companies to prevent importation of its patented drugs by other parties, in this case, parties in Australia. I understand that his provision will have no practical effect in Australia, since Australian law already prohibits drug exports. However, I am concerned about the dangerous precedence this sets. A bipartisan majority in Congress supports legislation to allow drug importation from other countries, and I believe that at some point, it will be the law of the land. Even though it may not matter for Australia, the United States will likely seek trade agreements with other countries in the future that do allow exports. The pharmaceutical industry must be put on notice that this kind of end-run around the will of Congress is not acceptable. And the administration must be put on notice that future trade agreements will have a hard time getting approval if we see these kinds of provisions again. Trade negotiations, simply put, are nothing more than an elaborate process of setting priorities and making trade offs. Where the U.S.- Australia trade agreement is concerned, it seems clear to me that U.S. negotiators were willing to trade quite a bit away in order to protect and promote the interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Unfortunately, dairy interests ended up on the wrong side of that deal. And though we avoided disaster after several of us made a final push to get our negotiators to focus on the impact their deals could have on our dairy industry, avoiding disaster is not enough to recommend the final agreement. This implementing bill does not improve--and probably harms--the chances for Wisconsin dairy producers to enhance their markets. As such, I cannot support it. I believe in free and fair trade. But this bill implements neither of those principles. The massive benefits won by the pharmaceutical industry were not free, they were bought by concessions from other industries, dairy and I am sure others of importance in my colleagues' States. And the economic balance struck by the deal--where some favored industries do well at the expense of others--is not fair. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the trade-offs this deal represents before casting your vote. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to address an issue of serious concern to families across the United States--the continued high cost of gasoline. Over the last few years, spring has always meant gas price spikes to southeastern Wisconsin. This year, that trend has gone nationwide, with consumers and businesses from coast to coast experiencing gas prices of over $2 a gallon. The current average price for a gallon of gas is $1.89, up 40 cents over last year. That means that a family owning one car can expect to spend an additional $286 this year on gas over last year. If a family has more than one car, then they are looking at almost an additional $600. With job losses plaguing the manufacturing sector and stagnant wages for those who have been lucky enough to keep their jobs, that kind of increase in the cost of transportation is a serious problem. And it is not only families who are feeling the pinch of high gas prices. Wal-Mart, the country's biggest retailer, has expressed concern that these higher fuel prices will result in lower sales--and in fact, the Commerce Department reported yesterday that retail sales saw their largest drop in 16 months. Our economy's health is dependent on consumer spending. If consumers are buying less because of high transportation costs, the family van will not be the only thing out of gas; our nascent economic recovery will also stall. Much of the gas money squeezed out of our economy heads to OPEC countries, the result of their blatant price fixing. To address that, Senator DeWine and I have introduced the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'' or NOPEC. NOPEC will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group such as 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 allow the Attorney General or the 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. This legislation would be a powerful tool to combat the illegal price fixing behavior of OPEC, behavior that would be severely prosecuted if it happened inside the U.S. or was carried out by U.S. companies. Although OPEC is a big part of the problem of high gas prices, the lack of refining capacity across the country also contributes. Every day our economy demands almost nine million barrels of gasoline to keep the marketplace moving, but we lack enough oil refining capacity to meet the demand. Refineries are operating at 95 percent of capacity-- and so we are forced to import 1 million barrels of refined gasoline a day. The antitrust subcommittee on which I am the ranking member has looked into the issue of whether insufficient refining capacity is a manufactured crisis designed to raise prices by reducing the supply of refined product. No new refineries have been built in this country for 25 years, while scores have been closed. Some believe that this has allowed the remaining refiners to keep gasoline prices abnormally high. We are going to have to be vigilant if we are to keep the short supply of refineries from allowing another Enron-like gouging of consumers. Indeed, I was gratified by the news last week that the FTC had begun a formal investigation into Shell's plans to close an important refinery in Bakersfield, CA, a refinery that produces 70,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Should the FTC conclude that the closure of this refinery results from efforts by Shell to control supply and raise prices, it must pursue all legal measures to protect consumers. The FTC must be tougher on all mergers in the oil and gas industry and act quickly and decisively to prevent oil companies from manipulating supply and prices. And Congress has important oversight responsibilities to make sure the FTC uses the powers we have given them. The high price of gas is an issue that affects everyone, but to those on the bottom of the economic ladder it can be devastating. It is a serious problem when--because of the cost of gas--getting to work, finding a new job, or visiting the grocery store or the doctor become a luxury out of the reach of working families. It is a serious problem that we need to address seriously--and there are simple steps, like some I have outlined today, that we can take this year. We can and should act--not sit on our hands while working families again reach for the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. In December, 2003, the U.S. government unexpectedly announced plans to resettle up to 15,000 Hmong refugees from Laos currently living in Thailand. These refugees will be reunited with some 200,000 Hmong family members who were resettled here 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. While we work with the Department of Health and Human Services to identify funds to help these new refugees resettle, it is extremely important that we act to help those refugees and asylees already living in the United States. 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. will now be 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 1996 welfare law included a 7-year time limit on SSI benefits for legal humanitarian immigrants. In order 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 Senators Smith, Lugar and I are 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 nine years. The legislation will retroactively restore benefits to many who have already lost them, and will protect those who are scheduled to lose benefits in the next two years. I cannot stress how important this legislation is to many in the State of Wisconsin. Just last month, an article in the Green Bay Press- Gazette told of the difficulties facing 79-year-old Sia Xiong, a Hmong refugee who could lose benefits in the coming months. Like many elderly refugees, she doesn't know English, which poses a huge barrier in her application for citizenship. Despite the assistance that has been given to refugees like Xiong from agencies such as Lutheran Social Services or Kajsiab House or the Neighborhood Law Project in Madison, the length of the naturalization process has proved overwhelming to too many refugees. Congress must take action immediately to help people like Xiong, and her family. 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. In December, 2003, the U.S. government unexpectedly announced plans to resettle up to 15,000 Hmong refugees from Laos currently living in Thailand. These refugees will be reunited with some 200,000 Hmong family members who were resettled here 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. While we work with the Department of Health and Human Services to identify funds to help these new refugees resettle, it is extremely important that we act to help those refugees and asylees already living in the United States. 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. will now be 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 1996 welfare law included a 7-year time limit on SSI benefits for legal humanitarian immigrants. In order 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 Senators Smith, Lugar and I are 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 nine years. The legislation will retroactively restore benefits to many who have already lost them, and will protect those who are scheduled to lose benefits in the next two years. I cannot stress how important this legislation is to many in the State of Wisconsin. Just last month, an article in the Green Bay Press- Gazette told of the difficulties facing 79-year-old Sia Xiong, a Hmong refugee who could lose benefits in the coming months. Like many elderly refugees, she doesn't know English, which poses a huge barrier in her application for citizenship. Despite the assistance that has been given to refugees like Xiong from agencies such as Lutheran Social Services or Kajsiab House or the Neighborhood Law Project in Madison, the length of the naturalization process has proved overwhelming to too many refugees. Congress must take action immediately to help people like Xiong, and her family. 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 am pleased to help lead the effort to put the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program on equal footing with other counter-cyclical income support programs in the farm bill. The MILC program provides critical support to dairy farmers when prices are low. When dairy prices rebound, as they have in recent months, it makes no payments to dairy farmers and the government spends nothing. For thousands of family-sized dairy operations across the nation, the MILC program has meant the difference between bankruptcy and survival. Unfortunately, the program as authorized in the last farm bill will come to an end in September, 2005. As many of my colleagues will recall, the MILC program was established after an extremely painful debate over dairy compacts. I remain resolutely opposed to dairy compacts or any scheme that further exacerbates regional discontent in diary. Extending the MILC program to the 2007 Farm Bill--rather than reopening rancorous regional warfare over dairy--seems the only prudent course of action. This proposal is a bipartisan and national approach that will provide stability and predictability in an otherwise volatile industry. I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to help lead the effort to put the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program on equal footing with other counter-cyclical income support programs in the farm bill. The MILC program provides critical support to dairy farmers when prices are low. When dairy prices rebound, as they have in recent months, it makes no payments to dairy farmers and the government spends nothing. For thousands of family-sized dairy operations across the nation, the MILC program has meant the difference between bankruptcy and survival. Unfortunately, the program as authorized in the last farm bill will come to an end in September, 2005. As many of my colleagues will recall, the MILC program was established after an extremely painful debate over dairy compacts. I remain resolutely opposed to dairy compacts or any scheme that further exacerbates regional discontent in diary. Extending the MILC program to the 2007 Farm Bill--rather than reopening rancorous regional warfare over dairy--seems the only prudent course of action. This proposal is a bipartisan and national approach that will provide stability and predictability in an otherwise volatile industry. I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of the nomination of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Diane Sykes to the Federal judiciary. She has been nominated to fill one of the Wisconsin seats on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to replace retiring Judge John Coffey. Justice Sykes brings an impressive background to this important position. She is a lifelong resident of Wisconsin. She was born in Milwaukee, attended Marquette University Law school, clerked for Federal Judge Terry Evans in Milwaukee, and practiced law for a top Wisconsin law firm. Justice Sykes left private practice in 1992 to serve as a Milwaukee County circuit judge, a position she held until 1999. She was then appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1999, and she won reelection to a 10-year term in the year 2000. She is to be commended for her devotion to public service and praised for her qualifications for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We are not the only ones to recognize her abilities. A bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission, which has been screening judicial candidates for Wisconsin Senators of both parties for 25 years, selected Justice Sykes and three others from an impressive list of applicants for this position. All four finalists were well qualified and all deserved to have their names forwarded to the President for his selection. Wisconsin's process should be a model because it finds qualified applicants and takes much of the politics out of judicial selection. The American Bar Association agrees with our evaluations as well. A substantial majority of the committee rated her ``well qualified.'' It is worth discussing, if only briefly, that some have expressed opposition to Justice Sykes' nomination. We will likely hear some of that dissent during that debate today. The primary argument against her is she was not totally forthcoming in her answers to questions asked during her hearing. We do not find that argument compelling. Rather, she would not have received the support of our bipartisan nominating commission without answering their questions. Further, she would not have received my endorsement had she not answered in a forthright and direct manner the questions we asked of her during our interview with Justice Sykes. Justice Sykes has earned a reputation as a fine lawyer and as a distinguished jurist during her career in Wisconsin. Lawyers throughout the State, regardless of their political persuasion, echo this sentiment. We expect Justice Sykes to not only be a credit to Wisconsin, but also to administer fair justice for all who come before her. We look forward to her confirmation today, and to her taking a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I filed an amendment to ensure the soundness of our Nation's defense supply chains through the support of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers. We would like to thank our colleagues, Senators Warner, Levin, Gregg, Hollings and McCain for accepting the modified amendment. Senator Reed and my amendment clarifies that the Department of Commerce has the ability to transfer and reprogram $21.8 million to the MEP Program in fiscal year 2004. The vitality and viability of our Nation's small manufacturers has tremendous consequences for our Nation. Without a strong manufacturing base, we risk losing wealth for our Nation, we risk good jobs for our citizens, and we risk irreparably harming our Nation's defense supply base at a critical time. The MEP assists America's small manufacturers and helps boost productivity, sales, investment in modernization, and employment. I have a very simple, but vital, message to deliver--manufacturing matters--MEP matters. But I am worried that President Bush does not understand this simple message. This fiscal year 2004, the administration's budget slashed the MEP Program by 88 percent. Due to the efforts of Senators Gregg and Hollings, the Senate fiscal 2004 appropriations bill restored funding for the program to $106 million. However, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 reduced that level to only $39.6 million. As a Federal-State-private partnership, MEP is a network of over 60 centers with 400 locations across the country and Puerto Rico providing technical assistance and business support services to small manufacturers. These not-for-profit centers employ more than 2,000 professionals who work with manufacturers to help them adopt and use the latest and most efficient technologies, processes, and business practices. As a result, our small manufacturers are better able to compete with low wage countries, maintain jobs in America, and continue driving a higher standard of living in the U.S. In fiscal year 2002, MEP's clients reported sales of $2.8 billion, 35,000 new or retained workers, $681 million in cost savings, and $941 million invested in new plant and equipment as a direct result of their MEP projects. However, funding constraints and budget cuts have forced every MEP Center in the country to downsize. According to a recent Modernization Forum survey, MEP Centers have closed 58 regional offices and reduced staffing by 15 percent, which will leave small manufacturers across the country without the invaluable technical and business assistance that helps them remain competitive edge in the global marketplace. Senator Reed's and my amendment will help address this issue by clarifying that the Secretary of Commerce can reprogram $21.8 million to the MEP Program this year. Fifty-five Senators requested that the Secretary reprogram funding to the MEP Centers this year. Unfortunately, the Department refused this request; leaving the MEP Centers and small manufacturers without the resources they need. In a response to the Senate request for reprogramming, Secretary Evans implied that the Department of Commerce does not consider it worthwhile to reprogram funding to the MEP program because the appropriations act would only allow the transfer and reprogramming of $3.9 million. In discussions with the Appropriations Committee and the Congressional Research Service, however, this appears to be a very narrow reading of the statute by the Department of Commerce. The appropriate level of funding that can, and should, be transferred and reprogrammed is $21.8 million. This amendment clarifies that level of funding for transfer and reprogramming. The administration needs to make resources available to help our Nation's small manufacturers. That is why I, along with my colleague Senator Reed, continue to call on the administration to reprogram $21.8 million to support the MEP Centers this year. And we call on the administration to send a Budget Amendment to Congress to support $106.9M for the MEP Program in fiscal 2005.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce the Imported Explosives Security Act. Domestic manufacturers are required to place identification markings on all explosive materials they produce for important security reasons. These markings enable law enforcement officers to determine the source of explosives and help them solve crimes. Yet, these same identifying markings are not required of those explosives manufactured overseas and imported into our country. This impedes law enforcement efforts and poses a security risk. The legislation we have introduced today is simple and straightforward. The legislation would simply treat imported explosives just like those manufactured inside the United States, requiring all imported explosives to carry the same markings currently placed on domestic explosives. It would require the name of the manufacturer, along with the time, date and shift of manufacture, to be placed on all explosives materials, whether they are manufactured here or abroad. These markings can be a tremendously useful tool for law enforcement officials, enabling investigators to determine the source of explosive materials. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the explosives can then 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 recent Senate hearing, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that ``determining the source of the components to any explosive device will assist you in determining who was responsible for any act using such a device.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives first sought to fill this gap in the law when it published a notice of a proposed rulemaking in November 2000. Now, nearly 4 years later, this rulemaking still has not been finalized. Each year, more than 25,000 pounds of stolen, lost, or abandoned explosives are recovered by law enforcement. When explosives do not carry appropriate markings, they cannot be quickly and effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes. Millions of pounds of unmarked explosives have already been distributed in this country. Each day we delay closing this loophole, we let more untraceable explosive materials cross our borders and undermine our national security. Failure to address this very straightforward issue in a timely manner unnecessarily hinders law enforcement's ability to solve crimes. Because the Department of Justice has not issued regulations to close this loophole in a timely manner, it is now incumbent upon us to act for them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to address the growing problem of the uninsured in America. This week is Cover the Uninsured Week. It is not only appropriate but necessary that we take this time to acknowledge the tragedy of American families living without health insurance, and often, as a result, without adequate health care. Solving this problem is going to take a lot more than talk; it is going to take decisive action by the Congress and, very importantly, by the administration. The number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow. In 2002, 15 percent of our population--over 43 million Americans--were uninsured. Since the year 2000, 3.8 million more Americans have become uninsured. While Wisconsin is doing better than the national average, we still had nearly 474,000 people uninsured in 2002--almost 10 percent of our population. More than half of the nonelderly uninsured are full-time workers or their spouses and children. It makes no sense to blame this staggering figure just on business. Good businesspeople want to provide health insurance to their employees. They know the value of a workforce that is receiving necessary preventive health care. They know the bottom- line productivity losses that occur when workers have to struggle with the costs of a serious illness in their families, and they are, in great part, family members themselves, often relying on the same insurance coverages as their employees, never wanting to see someone they work with suffer because they cannot afford adequate health care. Businesses want to offer solid, affordable health insurance to their employees, but it is getting harder to find every year. As premiums increase at double-digit rates every year, employers are forced to drop coverage or pass on more costs to their workers in the form of higher cost sharing, deductibles, and copays. Too often employees' wage increases are more than consumed by the higher health care costs they face. This crisis affects everyone. A recent study by the Kaiser Commission estimates the United States could spend $41 billion for uncompensated care for the uninsured in 2004. Eighty-five percent of that will be paid by Federal, State, and local governments using taxpayer funds. This issue has reached a crisis point. Yet it has been 8 years since Congress enacted meaningful health insurance reform. Further, this is not a partisan crisis. It is a national crisis. It will take a national solution, bipartisan and resolute, ambitious and courageous. That means we will need to reorder pet projects and other priorities in order to devote significant new resources to covering the uninsured. That means we need to give up political rivalries and partisanship in order to consider any good idea, regardless from which side of the aisle it comes. It means we need decisive leadership and commitment from the top; namely, from the President himself. So far we haven't seen much of that. The proposals the President has put forward would barely scratch the surface and some would create more problems than they solve. With over 43 million Americans uninsured, less than 3 million will be covered by his proposals, and they offer nothing to stem the rising health care cost problems we face. The American people deserve a more serious effort. When the President makes something a priority, we see action. When the President wanted tax cuts, he pushed two massive bills through Congress. When the President wanted authorization for war in Iraq, he successfully argued long and hard, not only here but all over the world, for the authority he needed. If the President wants to make the uninsured a priority, he has the influence, the control, and the position to make it happen. I know there is no silver bullet for dealing with the cost of health care. It will take a variety of solutions to expand coverage to the uninsured and help reign in the skyrocketing cost of health care. And it will take a combination of market and government-based solutions. We should look at proposals like tax credits to help small businesses afford health insurance, expansion of Government programs that work, like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, increased funding for community health centers, encouraging more purchasing pools, and the greater use of technology to improve quality and cut costs. Whatever the combinations are, it is time to have this debate. This administration needs to step up and provide leadership. We cannot ignore the crisis or wish it away. We cannot waste more time on sound- bite solutions that do nothing to solve the problem. We need to fight the plague of the uninsured the way we have fought other threats to our way of life and our basic values. This fight we desperately need to win. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to recognize nine extraordinary individuals from my home State of Wisconsin. Each of them dedicated, and ultimately sacrificed, their lives to protect their fellow citizens. On Thursday, May 13, 2004, a candlelight vigil will be held at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial to add 362 more names to the memorial. Each day, law enforcement officers risk life and limb to serve the public. On average, 167 officers are killed each year in the line of duty. This memorial is a lasting tribute to these courageous individuals. Nine of the names being added today belong to law enforcement officers who served throughout the State of Wisconsin. For the sacrifices they have made on our behalf, the citizens of Wisconsin owe these brave individuals and their families a debt that can never be repaid. I would like to honor them by placing their names in the Record, along with the date of their untimely passing. They are: Harry O. Harris of St. Croix County--6/18/1904; Richard Meyer of Winnebago County--11/13/2003; Roland Silas Payne of Wisconsin Rapids--11/10/1939; Roy Sampson of La Crosse County--9/24/1952; Matt Schumacher of the Wisconsin Department of the Treasury--9/22/1934; Michael Eron Shannon of Adams County--3/7/2003; Charles Snover of Waukesha County--7/28/1935; Curtis Owen Starry of Viroqua--3/13/1953; and Bruce Allen Williams of Green Lake County--10/19/2003. Every day, public safety officers around the country put themselves in harm's way to make our communities safer. It is important that we honor their dedication and commitment to making our country and our communities a better place in which to live. That is particularly true of those who have lost their lives in the line of duty, but it is also true of those who take that risk day after day. For their commitment and dedication to their profession, we are forever in their debt.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to discuss juvenile crime and juvenile crime prevention programs. We must remember that a strategy to combat juvenile crime consists of a large dose of prevention programs as well as strong enforcement. Juvenile justice programs have proven time and time again that they help prevent crime, strengthen communities, and give children a second chance to succeed and lead healthy lives. It is no secret that robust funding for these programs in the 1990s contributed to a 68 percent drop in juvenile crime from 1994 to 2000. Most importantly, investment in our at-risk children will help prevent a life marred by crime and wasted in prison. For these programs to succeed, however, they must be priorities for this Congress and for this administration. We fear that we are failing to live up to our responsibility on this essential issue. A little more than 3 months ago, President Bush released his fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. In it, juvenile justice and delinquency programs will receive only about one-third of the funding they received 3 years ago. This is at a time when recent statistics indicate an uptick in juvenile crime and an increase in school murder rates. We understand that other priorities compete with juvenile justice funding and local crime prevention programs. Yet the amounts we are discussing are so small in the grand scheme of the budget, and the results from the programs so immense, that they mandate our attention. When the Senate considered the budget resolution, we began to address the shortfalls in juvenile justice funding. I was pleased to work with Senators Hatch and Biden on an amendment to restore cuts made to juvenile justice programs and local law enforcement funding. Our amendment represents a step in the right direction by restoring juvenile justice funding to last year's levels, and reversing the trend of ever-diminishing appropriations for these programs. It is essential that the Kohl-Hatch-Biden amendment that restores juvenile justice funding remain in the final Budget Resolution. These programs are a wise investment. For every dollar spent on prevention, we save $3 to $4 in costs associated with juvenile crime. Furthermore, law enforcement officials strongly support prevention efforts. A recent poll shows that 71 percent of police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors believe that crime prevention efforts would have the greatest impact in reducing youth violence and crime. So for those who may fear that a crime prevention strategy is not ``tough'' enough on juveniles, we suggest that these programs make sound economic sense and are overwhelmingly endorsed by law enforcement. We must do a better job of funding them. Let me tell you about two essential programs. In 1992, we established the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program. Title V was and remains unique in that it is the only source of federal funding solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention efforts. More importantly, Title V has proven to be a very successful program that encourages investment, collaboration, and long-range prevention planning by local communities. Title V programs include preschool and parent training programs, youth mentoring, after-school activities, tutoring, truancy reduction, substance abuse prevention and gang prevention outreach. Through these initiatives, large cities like Milwaukee to small communities like Ladysmith, WI are creating environments that strengthen families and help children avoid crime and develop into productive adults. Enforcement is an important part of the overall strategy, but the administration cuts those programs as well. Positive intervention and treatment at this early stage of delinquency can prevent further violent behavior and steer a young person in the right direction before it is too late. Realizing this, Congress created the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, JAIBG, in 1997 and provided it with healthy funding levels of $250 million. Congress reauthorized Title V and JAIBG in 2002 at even greater levels. And we improved JAIBG by adding substance abuse and mental health counseling, restitution, community service, and supervised probations to the list of program options. The reauthorized program also ensures State and local accountability for proper and effective uses of funds. We have a choice in this Congress of where we want to invest our money. We can choose to address the roots of crime and invest in our children by preventing a life of criminal behavior. We can choose to intervene in a positive manner to work with those teens that have fallen through the cracks and have had a few scrapes with the law. We can turn many of those kids around. I urge my colleagues to make the right choice this year and boost funding for the Title V program, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, and juvenile justice programs overall. We can and must do better.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senators from North Dakota and Maryland. I supported this amendment because it repeals an unfair provision that pulls jobs away from the American manufacturing sector. I supported this amendment because it gives a tax break to companies who ship jobs overseas and then compete with domestic manufacturers. And I supported this amendment because Wisconsin has seen a steady decline in manufacturing jobs, with many of these jobs being sent offshore because the U.S. Government would not tax their profits. Under current law, a U.S. company that moves its manufacturing operations overseas may defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits it makes abroad until those profits are sent back to the U.S. This process, known as deferral, clearly serves as a reward for foreign investment and for shifting jobs off American soil. This reward comes at the cost of American taxpayers; as much as $2.2 billion over 7 years is lost for this misguided incentive. A tax policy that moves American jobs abroad at the expense of American taxpayers--clearly this is not something that Congress should continue to endorse. In addition to providing an incentive to move overseas, current law puts domestic manufacturers who keep jobs in the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. While foreign companies can reinvest profits abroad without paying any U.S. taxes, U.S.-based manufacturers investing in American jobs have their profits subject to U.S. taxes. Multinational companies should pay the same taxes that domestic companies pay, and companies keeping jobs in America should not be penalized for doing so. This is especially true given the continuing job loss in the manufacturing sector. Wisconsin has been especially hard hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas competitors. My State is one where manufacturing jobs have historically made up the core of our economy. Due in part to tax incentives such as deferral, Wisconsin has lost one out of every seven manufacturing jobs since 2000. The State's economy has not been able to absorb this increase in unemployed workers, resulting in a stagnant unemployment rate. The Dorgan-Mikulski amendment would repeal the tax incentive for American companies to move overseas. Our Tax Code should not endorse the continued loss of American jobs to companies investing overseas. The Dorgan-Mikulski amendment is the first part of a prolonged solution to the continuing loss of American manufacturing jobs. The amendment would partially repeal deferral, and targets the repeal to apply only to firms that move production overseas but continue to sell those products in the U.S. Thus, the amendment would repeal the competitive advantage that companies moving their production facilities offshore currently receive. At a time when the country's manufacturers are struggling, we cannot continue to give a benefit for those companies who send American jobs abroad. We must bring equity to the tax code, and bring jobs back to America.