Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Bill Simpson. The following speeches, ``The Celebration of the Life and Times of Bill Simpson'' and ``Bill's Table,'' were originally delivered after the occasion of Bill Simpson's burial at Arlington National Cemetery by Mr. Bill Simpson III and David Lambert, respectively. I ask consent the speeches be printed in the Record. The material follows: The Celebration of the Life and Times of Bill Simpson Thank you for being here today. Our family takes great comfort in your support and kindness through these trying times. We are eternally grateful. Today, I would like to acknowledge the Veteran's Medical Center in Washington, DC. The staff in this great hospice and nursing home provided excellent care to my father, while preserving his dignity in the last days of his life. The patient care staff are angels on earth. They are truly engaged in a labor of love, and that means so much to families who have loved ones under their care. I must also acknowledge the most supportive, faithful and loyal person in our father's life. Our mother, Evelyn, never wavered, not even for a single day. In honor of my father, the Simpson family has established ``The William Simpson Veteran's Assistance Account'' to provide some needed purchases to enhance the lives of those old warriors in their last days on this earth. Donations are appreciated, not only by my family, but also by the veterans and their families. We have also begun to compile some of my father's favorite stories. We have catalogued hundreds of his speeches that were written while serving with the late former Governor Paul B. Johnson of Mississippi, the late Senator James Eastland, former President Jimmy Carter and others when he returned to the private sector. My father loved the power and influence of language and words and it is reflected in his writings and stories. If you have a story from my father's life that you would like to share--or one that we haven't heard--and there are millions, please send them to us. We want to share these stories with his friends and family. This event is being held here at the ``116 Club,'' which is appropriate for many reasons. A celebration of the life and times of William Simpson would be incomplete without the 116 Club. This place was his home away from home. It was where he was comfortable. Here he was surrounded by people he truly loved. The people in this room carried him throughout his life. He loved this place. Here were people he truly admired--always sharing good stories and, of course, good food! Once again, we are grateful for your presence here today. It is such a moving testament to my father and we thank you. My father was my closest and most faithful friend. My sister Ellen and I were extremely fortunate, in these times when people thirst for a hero and role model, we didn't have to look very far. We just looked to my father. He was a great father, not only to my sister and me, but as a leader and mentor for so many people--many who are here today. My father was one of the most genuinely modest people that I have ever known. He never stood above people. He never forgot where he came from, and he never forgot or lost sight of his mission to serve--to serve others unselfishly. From his early days in the family seafood factory in Gulfport, Mississippi, he rose to work for the President of the United States, but he never lost his touch with his common roots. My father was a faithful and loyal husband for over 56 years to our mother, Evelyn. Faithful and loyal are words used most to describe him. It is fitting that he was laid to rest in the hallowed ground at Arlington National Cemetery, surrounded by veterans who have faithfully served this country. Our father took the oath of service to the United States of America to heart--it set the course for the rest of his life. Being ``faithful and loyal'' were not mere commodities to be used when it was popular, and then to be cast aside or compromised when it became a burden. These ideals were at the core of the fabric that represented the character of our father. He was ``faithful and loyal'' all his life--when he wore his uniform, when he served Governor Johnson, Senator Eastland, President Carter and his beloved home state of Mississippi and most importantly his family and friends. He would tell me a story many times over in my life and he would say, ``Bill, some of our friends die, and I wish we could do something about it, but we can't, that's life, but what we can control in this life is how you treat your friends. You never quit your friends, even if they lose an election, or are in trouble, or are in need. That's when you need to be there.'' For many of us here, he was our Atticus Finch, our backstop, always there with support and counsel, never having to look over your shoulder, because you knew he was there. My father was a man of character and courage. A great author once said ``courage is grace under pressure.'' If that is the case, this man was filed with grace. In the tough times in Mississippi during the Civil Rights Era, my father provided sound, courageous leadership. I know that he prevented bloodshed across the state. He was color- blind when it wasn't popular to be so. I attribute this to his strong faith and love for humanity. Money, fame and power meant nothing to him. He understood the proper use of power to help people, not for self- interest, but as a tool for service; especially for the under-represented. He would captivate crowds with his words and passion. He was gracious, kind, and gentle. He always kept a low profile, while maintaining unshakeable integrity. He was in every sense an American treasure. As Senator Kennedy stated last week on the floor of the Senate, ``Seeing him so often reminded me of those happy times when the Senate was full of friendships and goodwill in spite of huge disagreements on the issues. I know the beautiful memories of his long and productive life will last forever.'' We also received a note form Hiram Eastland who told his story better than I can--``What a wonderful life and wealth of friends he had. He deeply touched and brought joy and inspiration to the lives of many people . . . a legendary bedrock character with spirit and good humor . . . keen on Mississippi and Washington insight and stories that will live on in our memories. No man ever loved his family or his state or country more, and no man ever understood, enjoyed, or knew better how to engage and practice the art of politics for the public good than Bill Simpson''. As we say goodbye to this fine and decent man, let us take comfort in his accomplishments and most importantly remember the impact he had on our lives. In closing, I would like to use one of my father's favorite quotes that I think really defined his character-- The thoughts of others were light and fleeting. Of lover's meeting or luck or fame. Mine were of trouble and mine were steady. So I was ready when trouble came. My Father was ready. Thank you. lBill Simpson, III, January 12, 2004.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the conference agreement with regard to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill includes funding for important programs addressing organic agriculture. However, many of the important details regarding Congress' intent for the administration of USDA organic programs were enumerated in the House and Senate reports, without reiteration by the statement of managers. As stated in the preface of the statement of managers: [T]he House and Senate report language that is not changed by the conference is approved by the committee of conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, in keeping with this general rule, it seems appropriate to engage in a colloquy to assure that there is no confusion regarding congressional intent on the important USDA programs affecting organic agriculture. First, as stated in the Senate report, $1.5 million is provided for the National Organic Program, within the Agricultural Marketing Service account. I would like to reiterate that it is my intent, as ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, that some of the increased funding provided for this important organic program at USDA be used to more fully comply with some of the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, the authorizing statute for this program. Consistent with the Senate report on this matter, part of this funding should be used to hire an Executive Director for the National Organic Standards Board, NOSB, to create an ongoing peer review panel to oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic certifiers, and to improve scientific technical support for the NOSB. I would ask my colleague from Vermont, the ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation if he concurs with my comments on this matter?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to cloture on the Omnibus appropriations bill. I cannot fathom why the Senate would agree today to cut off debate on a measure that is fundamentally flawed precisely because it was put together without the input of the full House and Senate. We have before us a bill that allocates billions of dollars through a plan clabbered together behind closed doors by the White House a very few Republican Members. It was a partisan, undemocratic process and the result is a bill that both thwarts the will of our constituents and makes a mockery of Congress's obligation to control this Nation's purse strings. A vote for cloture today is a vote to rubberstamp the administration's wish list of policies and spending they couldn't get passed through the regular legislative process. And when you take a good look at what is in this bill--or what was forced out by the White House--you can understand why they had to put it together in a back room and why they want to push it through the Senate with little opportunity for debate. The issues of concern in this massive bill are numerous--let me just highlight a few of the worst. This Omnibus bill drops a provision to block a change in the rules that determine which workers are eligible for overtime pay. Both the House and the Senate voted in favor of maintaining the current rules. Both Houses agreed on a policy that would protect overtime for millions of working families-- but White House insisted on going ahead with their changes regardless of the bipartisan will of Congress. Overtime is crucial to helping families make ends meet. In an economy that has lost 3 million jobs, those that have managed to hold onto their livelihood need the extra money that overtime provides more than ever. On average, workers who receive overtime receive almost 25 percent of their pay that way. And the President pushed for, and won, a policy of cutting that vital income for 8 million workers. Lowering wages for working people is not the way to stimulate this economy. Sending as many as 8 million people home with less money in their pocket is not going to spur investment and boost productivity. And while the backroom negotiators chose to ignore the needs and concerns of workers with their overtime policy, they turned their backs on countless more consumers when they scuttled the country-of-origin labeling provisions passed by the Senate. If one thing comes through loud and clear from the BSE/mad cow experience, it's that consumers want basic information about the food they eat. To deny them such information takes from them a fundamental right to make decisions about their purchases, and their families' health. I had hoped that we might discuss country-of-origin labeling--along with several other issues--during the conference on the Agriculture appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the conference didn't work that way. Rather than bridge the difference between the House and the Senate on labeling, the conference went behind closed doors and chose another direction entirely. It dismissed the Senate resolution in support of labeling, then went on to embrace and even expand on the House's ill- advised rider. The result, a public kept in the dark by the Government about where and how the food they eat is made. The Omnibus also inappropriately compromises what Congress enacted regarding broadcast ownership rules. Both the House and Senate passed measures that would have reimposed the 35 percent national TV ownership cap, undoing a misguided FCC regulation that raised the cap to 45 percent. However, a deal with White House negotiators flouts Congressional intent and instead establishes a 39 percent limit--which seems less like a compromise and more like a favor to certain networks that currently own close to 39 percent of the Nation's broadcast stations. Overtime pay, FCC rules, country-of-origin labeling--all policies inserted into this bill by the administration and against the will of Congress and numerous constituencies we were sent here to represent. Beyond these glaring flaws, there are many--too many--funding and policy decisions that are just plain wrong--and need further debate, further votes, further negotiation. One obvious example is the administration's decision to slash funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to a fraction of its past level. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is one of the most successful Federal/State partnerships in Government. This program targets small and medium sized manufacturing firms, boosting productivity and increasing competitiveness as these firms face increasing pressure from global markets. The manufacturing sector has suffered devastating job losses during this past term, and the recent upturn in the economy left the manufacturing sector lagging far behind the rest of the country. MEP is a sound investment: MEP clients reported sales of $2.2 billion, nearly 24,500 new or retained workers during fiscal year 2001. Manufacturing is vital to building a strong economy, creating good jobs that contribute to a better standard of living for American families and a critical rung on the ladder of opportunity for those working toward a better life. The MEP has a proven record of preserving jobs and stimulating productivity in those firms utilizing MEP services. This vital program will be unable to maintain its public mission to serve small manufacturers without adequate Federal support. MEP has enjoyed wide bipartisan support due to the effectiveness of its programs and fine record of achievement, and failure to adequately fund this program is a disservice to our struggling manufacturing industry. I am also very disappointed that this bill includes inadequate funding for education. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a deal with our State and local partners in education. We insisted on real reform and accountability for results from States, school districts and teachers. And we authorized large increases in Federal funding to help them succeed. This was a bipartisan bargain that acknowledged that reform and resources must go hand in hand if we expect our Nation's public schools to improve. But once again the appropriations bill before us falls far short of Congress' commitment. It is $8 billion short of the authorized funding levels in No Child Left Behind. It provides only $12.4 billion for title I, which serves disadvantaged, low-income students and was authorized at $18.5 billion for fiscal year 2004. It provides only level funding for afterschool programs, which give students a safe and educational place to go during afterschool hours. The list goes on and on; this bill provides inadequate or reduced funding for many other programs under No Child Left Behind, leaving our schools--which are already struggling with budget shortfalls at the State and local level--with even greater challenges. In addition, while this bill provides an increase for Special Education, it is far short of meeting the Federal Government's promise to fund 40 percent of the costs. This bill also shortchanges our most vulnerable youth by inadequately funding juvenile justice programs for the second straight year. The title V At-Risk Children's Program, which provides juvenile crime prevention funding to local communities, will only net $25 million in this bill--this program should be funded about three or four times that amount. Overall, juvenile justice funding will receive more than $100 million less in fiscal year 2004 than last year. This is unacceptable and we must do better. If we are serious about our youth in this country, this bill certainly doesn't show it. We need to make their education and their well-being a top priority. Instead this bill cuts corners. We can and should do better than this. We have done better than this in the bills and policies we put together on a bipartisan basis last year. I cannot support this bill or any motion to speed its passage. Not when it--against the will of Congress--steals necessary overtime income from over 8 million workers. Not when it--against the advice of the Senate--trashes a program that lets consumers make informed decision about the safety of the food they eat. Not when it overturns the clear decision of Congress to limit concentration in the media industry. Not when it violates common sense, common decency and the common good by slashing funding for programs that educate our children and nurture our manufacturing industries. I will vote against cloture today and against the bill if it comes to a vote. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the proceeds of cigarette smuggling from low tax States has developed into a popular means of generating revenue for organized crime and even terrorist organizations. A recent investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, BATFE, disrupted a smuggling scheme between North Carolina and Michigan, where the revenue generated was being funneled to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. It is evident that the consequences of permitting this behavior to continue unchecked cannot be underestimated. To make matters worse, this problem is on the rise. According to the BATFE, 10 cigarette smuggling cases were initiated in 1998. That has grown to approximately 160 in 2002. Moreover, the sale of tobacco products over the Internet facilitates the avoidance of State cigarette taxes, denying States the ability to collect tax dollars they are owed--money the States need now more than ever. The PACT Act take a commonsense approach to addressing these problems. It increases penalties, provides more tools for enforcement, and closes loopholes in current law. These moderate, but important, changes will further enable Federal, State, local, and tribal officials to crack down on tobacco smugglers and ensure that Internet tobacco sellers pay applicable taxes. Despite being passed unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, some raised concerns over the legislation, particularly with respect to its effect on Indian Tribal sovereignty. After intensive negotiations with numerous interested parties, including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Department of Justice and various tribal groups, we have been able to craft language that will achieve the goals we set out to attain--to put an end to both cigarette trafficking and tobacco tax avoidance--while leaving the important principles of Indian Tribal sovereignty unaffected. Tobacco companies and antitobacco groups, State law enforcement and Federal law enforcement, and Republicans and Democrats all agree that this is an issue begging to be addressed. Today, we begin to provide the relevant law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to put an end to these dangerous practices.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Medicare conference report. Once again, the Senate is on the verge of passing a bill that is good for everyone--except the people the bill is supposed to help. Our Nation's seniors rely on Medicare and are asking for Congress' help with a real Medicare drug benefit. This bill doesn't give it to them. Instead, it is a dream package for drug companies, insurance companies, and the people who make TV ads for politicians. And it is a nightmare for too many Medicare beneficiaries. Our elderly and disabled citizens rely on Medicare. They know it and they are comfortable with it. They know it will cover most of their health care needs whether they're healthier or sicker, middle class, affluent, or low income. For years now our seniors have asked us to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare to help them pay for the costs of their medication. It is a simple, straight-forward request that this bill meets with a confusing, costly, and damaging response. The bill changes Medicare from the reliable, popular program that has worked for seniors since 1965 to a Government subsidy program for private insurance companies. The bill fundamentally changes the nature of Medicare. Instead of enhancing the current guaranteed benefit under Medicare with prescription drug coverage, the bill allocates billions to insurance companies to entice them to serve Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, the companies will be paid more than it costs traditional Medicare to cover seniors. And on top of that, there is a new $12 billion slush fund to beg them to enter the program. And what will these insurance companies do with this extra money? They will design their plans to attract the healthiest, wealthiest seniors--and leave poorer, sicker seniors in traditional Medicare facing higher costs. This is no small point. Medicare has worked for decades because it is a universal, reliable program. People believe in it, and it has worked well for them. But this bill, which was supposed to simply add a new prescription drug benefit, instead changes Medicare to a new system of winners and losers. This fundamental weakening of the Medicare system is bad enough, but even worse is the process by which Congress is considering the changes. The conference report was put together by a small group behind closed doors. It is over a thousand pages long and is extremely complicated. But we're being given only four days to read and digest this massive bill--this massive shift in the way we provide health care to our seniors. Why are we rushing to vote? Are we afraid of seniors learning the truth about what's really in this bill? This bill makes the most sweeping changes to Medicare since its creation, and we have barely had time to examine it. Our seniors deserve more than a cursory glance and crossed fingers that everything will work out. Our seniors also deserve a real prescription drug benefit that gets the best prices for their medication. But this bill actually prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. What a huge missed opportunity. What a waste of taxpayers' dollars. We could have used the tremendous purchasing power of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to make sure that prices are fair. Instead, this bill is a windfall for the drug industry. Just look at drug companies' stocks shooting up over the last few days; it is clear who the winners under this bill are. The drug benefit itself is far less generous than seniors expect and deserve--and for many seniors, it will do more harm than good. Many seniors will still be responsible for most of their drug costs. Those with drug costs below $810 a year will actually pay more than they do today if they sign up for the drug benefit. Seniors with drug costs of $5,000 will still pay almost $4,000 themselves--almost 80 percent of the bill. There is a giant hole in the drug benefit--a gap in coverage where seniors continue to pay their monthly premiums but get absolutely no help from Medicare with their drug bills. I voted against the original Senate bill in part because of this gap. Now instead of closing the gap in conference, this bill actually doubles its size. Even worse, this bill will cause many retirees who already have good drug coverage through their former employers to lose it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2.7 million seniors nationwide could lose their current coverage, including as many as 60,000 in Wisconsin. These seniors worked hard to earn retiree health coverage. That coverage will now be in jeopardy. In addition, while there is additional help for some low-income beneficiaries, millions of poorer seniors will be worse off because of this bill. Up to 6 million seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid--the poorest of the poor--will have higher costs. Up to 110,000 dually eligible seniors in Wisconsin could be affected. In addition, the bill cuts out the extra help for millions of low-income seniors if they fail a restrictive asset test. There are some good things in this bill. It includes an increase in Medicare payments to Wisconsin that will finally begin to level the playing field for Wisconsin's doctors, hospitals, and seniors. I am pleased that this was included. I know there are some who say we can't afford to wait for a perfect bill. But I believe that this bill is not just far from perfect--it will actually do harm to many of our seniors and will waste billions of taxpayer dollars in a giveaway to the insurance industry and drug companies. This drug benefit is nowhere close to what seniors have asked us to deliver. They wanted to pay less for their prescription drugs. We could have done tremendous good here. We could have brought the price of drugs down using bulk purchasing through Medicare, greater use of generic drugs, and allowing seniors to purchase less expensive drugs from Canada. Instead, we have a complicated and skimpy drug benefit, huge subsidies to drug and insurance companies, and a sea change in the Medicare Program. This is not what seniors asked for, and they will not be fooled. When they learn the details of this bill, they will rightly revolt. There are those who say we have to pass this bill today because we'll never have another chance. That is ridiculous. We have only had four days to look at this 1,000-page bill. We haven't had any time to go back home and discuss this with out constituents. How can we represent the seniors in our States when not one of them has had a chance to see, digest or comment on this bill. This bill doesn't even go into effect until 2006, so why the rush to pass it today? With a mere 4 days of study, we are about to enact historic, sweeping changes to Medicare. The people we represent deserve a much more serious effort. I do not believe that this bill is our last and only chance. If this bill is defeated, we can't and won't give up on a real, effective and smart prescription drug benefit in Medicare. We can't and won't turn our backs on doctors, hospitals and health care providers. We can do better if we have the will and the courage to do it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President I regret having to vote against this energy package. The country needs a coherent energy policy to help us tackle the challenges that come with economic growth. Our constituents need to know that when they wake up in the morning, the lights will be on and the energy to power our days will be available. Our economy needs plentiful, affordable, reliable energy as we struggle to climb out of a devastating period of slow growth and job loss. Unfortunately, this bill does more to meet the needs of special interests than the needs of a growing economy. We need an energy bill that leads to lower prices, a clean environment, and consumer protection. The bill before us today is a missed opportunity to further any of those goals. It has come up short in its effort to lower natural gas prices for Wisconsin consumers. Natural gas prices have been a roller coaster for the people from my State, and we need a large long term supply to come on line. The North Slope of Alaska was the answer, but this bill has done little to make that supply a reality. Another problem plaguing consumers in Wisconsin is spikes in gas prices brought on by our overdependence on boutique fuels. Most recently, in southeastern Wisconsin, a fire at a refinery resulted in consumers paying $2 a gallon for gasoline because we could not bring in gasoline from other regions without violating the Clean Air Act. The bill before us could have limited the different blends of gasoline in use around the country, so that if one area had a supply disruption, fuel could be imported from another region. I worked with members of the Wisconsin delegation to include language to solve this problem in the future, but that was not retained in the conference Committee negotiations. Wisconsinites will continue to be held hostage to local refineries during supply disruptions. I supported provisions in the Senate energy bill that would have created a renewable fuels portfolio standard or RPS. The RPS was going to be an aggressive target that would have created a significant market for renewable energy technologies. While the bill does contain tax provisions to encourage the use of renewable energy, the RPS was a new and exciting effort to wean us of our addiction to fossil fuels. The RPS was dropped in conference, even though it had received several strong votes in the Senate. Many States are creating their own RPS, but a national requirement would have set the renewable energy industry on a path to mainstream success. Instead, we are left with small changes at the margins which will not significantly affect our energy production mix. High electricity prices over the last few years have made it clear that consumers need better protection from unscrupulous companies. Again the Senate bill contained provisions that would protected consumers from the kind of price gouging schemes created by Enron. My colleagues worked hard to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the teeth and the oversight capability to protect consumers in a world without the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Again the conference turned their back on the Senate provision and embraced House language that defends industry at the expense of State and Federal regulators. The Congress has squandered another opportunity to craft a far reaching and progressive energy policy for this country. Instead we have chosen to pander to special interests and create a particularly unsavory piece of legislative sausage. The bill before has been laden with three time the tax breaks the President requested, and more than $100 billion in spending. We can do better than this. We should do better than this, which is why I oppose the bill and support the filibuster. Congress owes it to the American people to come back next year and put together a bill that meets the needs of everyone, consumers and industry alike, instead of playing favorites and leaving the taxpayers with the bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now 15 years, and I must say I never experienced what will be 30 hours, when this debate ends at around midnight tonight, that I thought were as off point and, in many ways, as not relevant to what we are talking about here--which is Federal judgeships in our country--as this debate has been. In my judgment, that is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not wanted to deal with the facts and have wanted to, instead, try to create impressions which are not true. Because the fact is--and it has been said now on many occasions and many times since this debate started last night--the President and the committee have sent to the floor 172 nominees since he came into office, and we have voted out 168 of them positively, and 4 have been held up. So how can anybody claim that in fact there is a conspiracy to deny those nominees sent up by the President a vote? Mr. President, 168 have been voted on and are now sitting in their Federal judgeships, and 4 have been held up. Furthermore, the vacancy rate at the Federal judgeship level is less than 5 percent. In other words, over 95 percent of all the Federal judgeships in this country are now presently occupied. When you have a vacancy rate of less than 5 percent, how can anybody make the argument that there is something sinister going on? Just a minute ago, my colleague from Alaska suggested that in the Ninth Circuit, because of the vacancies, apparently, justice delayed is justice denied. That phrase has been used time and again to suggest that perhaps a third or a half of all of the Federal judgeships in this country today are vacant. Again, I repeat, it is less than 5 percent. It is at its lowest point since 1985 in terms of vacancies. Now, on the Ninth Circuit, which was referred to by my colleague from Alaska, there are 25 circuit court judges who are supposed to be sitting, and there are but 2 vacancies at the present time. So how can we make the argument that justice delayed is justice denied because there are ``so many vacancies on the Federal judiciary''? It simply is not true. So what is the argument about? What are we spending these 30 hours on? To suggest that the Democrats are holding up the Federal judiciary by some vast conspiracy which, in fact, the numbers do not suggest in any way to be true? In fact, when President Bush took office, we did have a vacancy rate of about 12 percent, and now it is down, as I said, to less than 5 percent, which is at its lowest point since 1985. So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what is the point? Why are we spending 30 hours debating an issue which, in fact, is not an issue? If we want to debate ideology, that is an entirely different story. But that is not what this 30-hour debate is all about. It is about the assertion made by the other side that the Democrats are preventing our Federal judiciary from doing its job by decimating Federal judgeships all over the country. As I pointed out here, in the most clear manner, in an arithmetic way, the argument in no way has any merit. So I wish we could move on and talk about the things that are really important to the American people today, on which they are looking to us for leadership: Our economy, our deficit, our unemployment rate, our health care crisis, our educational crisis, the problems men and women who are leading their regular lives every day face and on which they are looking to the Federal Government for at least some help and assistance. They are not all hot and bothered about the fact that 4.5 percent or 5 percent of the Federal judgeships in this country are today vacant, which is to say that over 95 percent are occupied. They are not concerned about that. They are concerned about their real problems and what we are doing to try to alleviate them. And here we are, taking 30 hours and, in my opinion, just wasting it in talking about a problem which the other side alleges exists and does not exist. Finally, when President Clinton was in office, and the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1995 to the year 2000, nominees were also denied votes in that era. They were denied votes because they were not given hearings by the Republican Judiciary Committee. So they were denied their vote in much the same way that some are being denied a vote right now. That is the way the process works. There is nothing sinister about it, and it certainly does not cripple our country's judicial system. My colleague from New Jersey is, I believe, waiting to speak.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Michigan, and I will be happy to work with them in conference to obtain funding for this critical phytophthora root rot research at Michigan State University.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to respond to the Senator from California by saying that I appreciate the value of sound research programs that use a combination of the expertise of the industry involved, the best scientists in our universities, and the outstanding scientific resources within the Department of Agriculture. As Senator Feinstein noted, we have fiscal restraints with which we must abide. I assure the Senator that I will bring an open mind to the conference and will try to craft the best possible legislation. I certainly will do what I can in conference to see that this research continues, and I will carefully consider the $3 million proposed for the Grape Genomics Center at UC Davis.

Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Michigan and concur with them that this is a problem that must be immediately addressed. I will work in conference to include in the statement of managers language requiring APHIS to do a comprehensive review of their procedures and regulations, and report to Congress by January 1, 2004, on whether or not these regulations and procedures are adequate to prevent the Asian long-horned beetle from entering into Michigan in Canadian trash trucks.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate this unique effort to use a cooperative approach to get the most output out of each scarce research dollar appropriated to the winegrape and wine industry. I also look forward to working with the Senator on this issue, not only in the upcoming conference, but also in the future to see how the Viticulture Consortium can continue to expand on its excellent work. amendment no. 2090

Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. We will do what we can. projects of interest in louisiana

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa raises a good point. Although funds are tight, we should work to determine how we can improve our Federal agro-terrorism defenses and work to help the States improve their efforts as well. The potential economic loss from such an event is huge. The danger to human lives could be dramatic. I would like to work with the Senator from Iowa to see what we can do to improve our efforts in this area in conference.

Mr. KOHL. I would also concur, and would add that it would be my hope the Department would give particular consideration to farm income- enhancing projects that advance the statutory priority mission area related to small and medium-size farm viability and competitiveness.

Mr. KOHL. I agree. The continued presence of the emerald ash borer threatens the ash tree population not only in Michigan, but across our nation. USDA should develop a clear plan for eradicating the ash borer. The committee shares your concerns about the presence of the emerald ash borer in Michigan and other states and asks that APHIS provide Congress with a report on the plan and estimated cost of eradicating the pest. wine grape foundation block funding

Mr. KOHL. I agree that the Department should fulfill their responsibility to give effect to all the provisions of the IFAFS program.

Mr. KOHL. I feel as does Senator Bennett. I will do my best to see that it stays in conference.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to make the comment that Senator Bingaman has brought a very important and relevant issue to the floor. I agree with him that the funding level is inadequate, but I agree with Senator Bennett that finding an offset is not yet something we have been able to do. I personally, if Senator Bennett feels the same way, would be willing to work with Senator Bingaman to see if we can't find some way to provide a satisfactory offset and, at any rate, to do everything we can to improve the funding level for this important service, if not this year, in future years.

Mr. KOHL. Yes, Senator Murray, I agree. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I will work in conference to do what I can to support your request and to include language in the final statement of managers.

Mr. KOHL. I yield our time.

Mr. KOHL. The chairman and I understand the importance of this program to the Great Lakes region, and we will do what we can to support the House funding allocation for this program in conference. grape genomics research center and viticulture consortium

Mr. KOHL. Senator Nelson, I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. I will work to include this provision during conference negotiations of this bill. chino basin manure management project

Mr. KOHL. I concur with the comments of my colleagues and pledge to work in conference to address their concerns relating to increased funding for the Office of Civil Rights and for the section 2501 Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers to the levels agreed to in the House-passed bill. McGovern-Dole Food Aid