Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I would like to make a brief statement on this amendment. This is a complicated issue.

Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. This is a very complicated issue. This is an issue on which the Senator from California has spent a lot of time. I believe she knows it thoroughly. Her proposal would bring more transparency to the derivatives market, something we should all support. With above-board transparent markets, derivatives trading will never be taken seriously and investors will always be at risk of being taken advantage of. I will be supporting the Feinstein amendment. I urge fellow Senators to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman to clarify the intent of language included in the Senate report regarding studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs Administration account. In our Senate report, we have included language stating that the committee is providing $3,195,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level, for studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs Administration Account. I have since been contacted by USDA noting that the $3,195,000 provided in fiscal year 2003 was actually an increase over their base funding. Therefore, the question becomes whether our intent was simply to maintain $3,195,000 in funding for studies and evaluations, or to maintain the $3,195,000 increase provided in fiscal year 2003. It is may belief that our intention was to maintain the increase, and while I believe we should clarify this in the Statement of Managers during conference negotiations, I also wanted to mention it during our Senate debate. Is it your understanding that it was our intention to maintain the increase in funding provided in this account?

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator's comments and agree that this work merits appropriate emphasis in our upcoming conference on Agriculture appropriations.

Mr. KOHL. I rise to join Senator Reed and Senator Chafee in expressing my concern about this outbreak of Low-Path Avian Influenza in Rhode Island. This disease has resulted in substantial losses in poultry producers in several states and, in response, Congress has previously directed APHIS to help poultry producers cover costs associated with depopulating infected flocks. I agree with the importance of doing what we can to prevent avian influenza from threatening the livelihood of poultry operations in Rhode Island and southern New England. I will work with the distinguished subcommittee chairman and try to include language in the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to ensure that APHIS provides assistance with depopulation of infected flocks in Rhode Island. southern plains range research station

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, our subcommittee has a consistent history of supporting this rural development effort and promoting this kind of multi-disciplinary approach. That was the intent of our committee report and, I am sure, will continue to be an important focus of the subcommittee.

Mr. KOHL. Just to make sure I understand, this is a medically underserved area?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies. This year, the subcommittee faced a difficult task. The allocation provided to the subcommittee, just over $17 billion in discretionary funding, was a significant decrease from the fiscal year 2003 funding level. Our new chairman, Senator Bennett, worked extremely hard to balance priorities in this bill with limited funding. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I appreciate the good job that he has done. I would like to briefly mention some of the highlights of this bill. Continued funding has been provided for important research projects ranging from nutrition issues to the control of emerging diseases. As we witnessed the devastating economic effect that one case of mad cow disease had on Canada, the importance of knowing all we can about it and making certain that our borders are protected becomes very clear. Further, outbreaks of Chronic Wasting Disease and West Nile Virus demonstrate how small the world has become, and research funded in this bill plays an integral role in keeping America prepared. Continued funding has also been provided for ongoing conservation projects across the country. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides basic services to help ensure that agriculture and our natural resources can fully complement each other. Risks from drought and flooding are reduced due to activities carried out by the NRCS. In recent years and recent days, it seems nearly every community in America has been faced with one or the other, and the NRCS, along with the Farm Service Agency, has played a vital role in protecting and assisting affected communities. Funding has been provided to improve food safety, including funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to hire an additional 87 food safety inspectors and foreign program auditors. Funding for additional training, to improve the scientific and surveillance skills of these inspectors, as well as improved laboratory capability to ensure that they have access to modern equipment, is also included in this bill. The Food and Drug Administration is provided funding to improve monitoring of the food industry, improve the FDA's laboratory preparedness, and to implement the recently mandated Food Registration System. For rural development, this bill provides adequate resources to continue the important programs that include homeownership, essential community facilities, water and waste assistance, business loan and grant programs. The committee has also provided sufficient funds for farm credit programs, which are essential to farmers who could not obtain funding from the commercial sector for ownership and operating loans. The bill provides sufficient funding for the WIC program to support a monthly participation level of approximately 7.8 million low-income women, infants and children, the same participation level requested in the budget. This level includes funding for several initiatives requested by the President, and includes $25 million for the popular WIC Farmers' Market program and a $125 million contingency fund. Funding for the food stamp program and the commodity supplemental food program is also provided in this bill. Funding for the child nutrition programs, which include school breakfast, school lunch, the child and adult care feeding program, and the summer food service program, is included at the President's request level. In previous years, I have worked to include several provisions in this bill to expand the availability of these important programs. This year, due to the scheduled reauthorization of the child nutrition programs, these provisions are not included. Instead, I have been working with the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee to have these provisions included permanently in child nutrition reauthorization. The FDA is funded in this bill at sufficient levels to continue its mission of promoting and protecting the public health. Increased funding is provided for the food safety items I previously mentioned, as well as patient safety activities, medical device review, over the counter drugs, generic drugs, and pharmaceuticals for children. Last year, consumers spent nearly $1.5 trillion dollars on FDA-regulated products. The work done there is vital to this country, and the nearly $1.4 billion in funding provided to the agency reflects that importance. I believe that more could be done with additional funding. However, with the dollars available, the chairman has put together a good bill that I fully support. I would like to thank Senator Bennett for his leadership and hard work, as well as the hard work of his staff Pat Raymond, Fitzhugh Elder, Hunter Moorhead, and Dianne Preece. It is hard to believe that this is their first year working on this bill. Their expertise and professionalism would indicate that they had many years experience on this subcommittee. Again, I strongly support this bill, and I urge all Members to vote for its passage.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Durbin, Shelby and Sarbanes in expressing our concern about an issue that could affect countless graduates who work hard to pay off their student loans. A little over a year ago, Sallie Mae--one of the largest originators of student loans and the largest secondary market for student loans-- made a quiet decision that had a huge impact on college graduates. Sallie Mae refused to report student loan repayment histories to two out of three major credit reporting agencies. That means graduates-- most of whom have good records of paying on their student loans--have huge holes in their credit histories holes that prevent them from establishing credit or getting the best rates to buy their first home. I recognize that our credit reporting system is essentially voluntary. There is no legal requirement that any private business report information to any credit bureau. However, Sallie Mae is an exception. U.S. Department of Education regulations require Sallie Mae to report student loan credit report histories to at least one of the three major credit reporting agencies. Until last year, they reported to all three agencies. Then, Sallie Mae decided to stop reporting to two of the agencies. Some say they stopped because those two agencies routinely sold lists of Sallie Mae customers to competitors who could offer better deals. Sallie Mae maintains that they were protecting their customers from unwanted solicitations. Whatever the reason, the result is clear: students who have worked hard to complete their education are hurt by this policy. Graduates entering the workforce and attempting to establish credit--even those who may have excellent records paying off their student loans--end up with incomplete credit records. On that basis alone, they may be denied credit. This is a significant problem. Leaving out positive credit information on student loans can lead to a lower credit score for consumers. Lower credit scores penalize consumers in the form of higher credit card and mortgage interest rates, more expensive insurance, and even the risk of being excluded from the marketplace altogether. Sallie Mae's decision has been especially detrimental to new home buyers. Mortgage credit is generally based on a merged credit report which incorporates information from all three credit repositories. It can only provide an accurate credit history if all three reports are complete. The Washington Post recently highlighted the story of a 31-year-old architect who applied for a mortgage to buy a new house. Because Sallie Mae did not report his years of on-time student loan payments to all the credit bureaus, his credit score dropped 40 points--and his mortgage rate increased 1.5 points--costing him $200 dollars more per month in interest payments. After learning of this problem last month, I have been in touch with Sallie Mae to urge them to resume full credit reporting to all three of the major credit reporting bureaus. I have also been in touch with the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, and with Senator Durbin. I appreciate their willingness to work with me to ensure that student loan repayment histories are fully reported to all the major credit bureaus. I am especially pleased that today, Sallie Mae announced that they have reached agreement with the credit bureaus and will now begin reporting to all three once again. I appreciate their efforts to work with our offices to solve this problem and ensure that their customers get the credit they have earned. I commend Sallie Mae for doing the right thing and fixing this problem promptly. This is truly a positive step forward, but I think we should take one more at the appropriate time. Congress should codify these new agreements in law by requiring Sallie Mae to report to all three major credit bureaus. This will guarantee graduates that their student loan payment histories will always be reported and their credit scores will be complete. It will make sure that we do not face further problems in the future. Senator Durbin and I have both been working on amendments that would do just that. While I will not offer an amendment on this bill, I look forward to working with Senator Durbin, Chairman Shelby, and Senator Sarbanes to address this issue in the future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate took an important step toward expanding the debate on global warming. Greenhouse gasses and global warming are a real threat to our environment and our way of life. The National Academy of Sciences has verified the scientific evidence backing global warming. And the private sector is facing the real world impact of global warming as they contemplate the insurance costs of rising sea levels and more destructive storms. A decade ago, debate ranged within and without the ivory towers of academia over the hazy science backing claims of global warming. Today, the fog has lifted and we can see the impact that burning fossil fuels has had on the climate. The changes to our environment are real. Our job now is to decide what to do about it. The approach set out by this version of the McCain-Lieberman bill is a reasonable first step. It is not perfect, and if we would have been able to take up and debate amendments there are several, significant changes I would have supported. My biggest concern is that this bill would have us move toward reducing emissions without requiring the rest of the world to join us. While we have a responsibility to reduce our own emissions, we need to work with the international community. China, for example, is approaching the United States as a producer of green house gasses and must be a part of any practical effort to reverse global warming. If our unilateral efforts convince China they have no need to act, than our approach could do more harm than good. I vote for this bill today as a message to the administration that it is time to redouble efforts to spark a world effort to address global warning. I do not vote to commit the United States as the sole participant in that effort. I strongly support including environmental standards as part of our trade agreements. Clean air and water issues should be discussed with our international trade partners during trade negotiations. Letting our competitors avoid environmental issues that impact everyone around the world is shortsighted. It hurts our environment and our business community. The bill before us has other problems that could be addressed with a longer debate time and the opportunity to offer amendments. The Senate should carefully scrutinize the legislation's timetable and should consider giving industry more flexibility in earning credits. But while these issues need to be addressed, every journey starts with a single step, and this vote is that first step. We have begun seriously to struggle with climate change. And ultimately, inevitably, we need to make some tough decisions about climate change. We must reduce greenhouse gasses to protect our environment and our way of life for generations to come. A yes vote today sets us on the path to confront this issue head on.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Carl and Florence Conter, lifelong residents of Wisconsin, on their 60th wedding anniversary. The country dance they met at began their life together blessed with family and friends to celebrate these years. The couple was married at Holy Cross Catholic Church in Mishicot on November 6, 1943. Florence joined Carl on his family homestead in Two Creeks where he was born and lived for 85 years. It remained an active dairy farm until the late 1960s. Recently they have moved to Mishicot. Today, many years after that first country dance at which they met, their story continues. Their children have grown up to be successful adults themselves, providing Carl and Florence with three grandchildren and four great grandchildren. Family life and faith has been a rewarding and sustaining part of their long relationship. Carl supports Florence in her advocacy of senior citizen issues. They both enjoy playing sheepshead and belong to several card clubs. I join their many friends and their family in celebration as we honor Carl and Florence Conter on their 60th wedding anniversary. They are the very best Wisconsin has to offer, and I wish them continued joy and happiness.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite the fact that the Judiciary Committee rejected his confirmation little more than 18 months ago, the President has seen fit to renominate Judge Pickering for this appellate court judgeship. But nothing that has occurred in the last year should alter our conclusion that we should not confirm Judge Pickering. The President's decision to again advance Judge Pickering's nomination at this time is hard to understand. Had new facts come to light regarding Judge Pickering's qualifications or record which assuaged our doubts concerning his fitness for this judgeship, or new explanations emerged for his rulings and actions while a district judge, we could understand the President's decision to renominate him. But absolutely nothing of the kind has happened. His record was scrutinized at length and in detail by this Committee last year, and a majority found it deficient. Rather than examining the qualifications and record of a new nominee, we are once again rehashing the already well-documented and well-established problems with this nominee. And our conclusion today is the same as it was last year--Judge Pickering does not warrant a promotion to the Fifth Circuit. As Judge Pickering's record became known last year, we grew more and more concerned about his ability to apply and make the law without interjecting his strongly held opinions. Many of Judge Pickering's decisions are far outside of the mainstream and appeared to be motivated by a rigid ideological agenda. For example, he has shown an unrelenting hostility to persons bringing cases of employment discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity or gender. In voting rights cases, he has demonstrated a callous attitude toward the core democratic principle that every vote must count. And we are all aware of Judge Pickering's disgraceful actions to reduce the sentence of a man convicted burning a cross in the front lawn of an interracial couple. Judge Pickering's extraordinary behavior on behalf of a defendant in a cross-burning case seriously calls into question his impartiality, his judgment, and his fitness to serve as an appeals court judge. This incident looks no better today than it did 18 months ago. We are further troubled by Judge Pickering's continued active solicitation of support of letters of recommendation from lawyers practicing before him. Judge Pickering admitted at his confirmation hearing last year that he asked several lawyers who practiced before him to write letters of support and to send those letters to his chambers so that he could send them on to the Justice Department. This conduct obviously constitutes an abuse of a judge's position. Even after hearing the ethical concerns of many last year, he has continued this inappropriate practice. Such plain disregard for judicial proprieties and ethics speaks loudly against promoting Judge Pickering to the Fifth Circuit. The deficiencies in Judge Pickering's record are particularly intolerable in a candidate for an appellate judgeship. Once confirmed to their positions for life, federal judges are unanswerable to the Congress, the President, or the people. But this fact has special force when we are considering an appellate court nominee. On the circuit court, a judge enjoys the freedom to make policy if he chooses with little concern of being overruled. Subject only to the infrequent review by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals judges are the last word with respect to our liberties, our Constitution, and our civil rights. I also should stress that I do not oppose Judge Pickering because his political views might be different than mine. The President has a right to appoint judges of his own political leanings. But in the case of Judge Pickering, it appears his ideology is so strong, and his convictions so settled, as to interfere with his ability to fairly dispense justice and protect the rights of the most vulnerable in our society. Judge Pickering's record as a judge over the past decade has called into question whether he can enter the courtroom and apply the law fairly, objectively, and without prejudice. This reason alone compels us to oppose his nomination. I must also dissent from the charge that filibustering this nomination is an abuse of our Constitutional duty to advise and consent. While such a step is not--and should not--be done routinely, filibusters of judicial nominations have been undertaken under the leadership of both parties several times in recent years. This does not even take into account the silent filibuster known as a ``hold''--often anonymous--which permits one objector to block consideration of a judicial nominee. President Clinton's nominees were routinely defeated by anonymous holds. And those holds only defeated the nominees who were lucky enough to even get a hearing and a committee vote. In the case of Judge Pickering, his candidacy has been reviewed and debated twice by the Judiciary Committee. Plainly he has received fair consideration of his nomination. Judge Pickering is simply unfit for promotion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No new facts have come forward which justifies reconsideration of the Judiciary Committee's decision to reject his nomination last year. For these reasons, I must vote against cloture on his nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator DeWine, to introduce the ``Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2003.'' This important bipartisan antitrust reform bill will strengthen the procedures under which antitrust settlements are reviewed by the courts, will increase criminal penalties for the most egregious antitrust violations, and will enhance the Justice Department's existing leniency program to encourage more antitrust criminal wrongdoers to come forward and thereby significantly assist the Department in detecting and preventing antitrust conspiracies. This bill will accomplish three important goals. First, it will strengthen the review of the Justice Department's civil antitrust settlements under the Tunney Act. The Tunney Act is an important statute, passed nearly thirty years ago, that insures the public interest and consumers are protected when the Justice Department settles civil antitrust cases. The Tunney Act requires that, before entering any proposed consent judgment proposed by the Justice Department, the court must determine that the judgment is in the public interest. The statute also contains strict procedures for the public disclosure of proposed antitrust consent decrees and an opportunity for public comment. The Tunney Act was passed in 1974 in response to concerns that some Justice Department settlements were motivated by inappropriate political pressure and were simply inadequate to restore competition or protect consumers. Congress concluded that review by the district courts to be an essential safeguard to deter the Justice Department from settling cases without regard for the public interest or the interest of affected consumers. The Tunney Act was enacted to end the then-prevalent practice of district judges ``rubber stamping'' antitrust consent decrees. Unfortunately, in recent years, many courts--including specifically the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--have misconstrued the plain meaning of the Tunney Act and have returned to the practice of ``rubber stamp'' review of antitrust settlements. The controlling precedent in the D.C. Circuit is now that trial courts must enter antitrust consent decrees as long as they do not make a ``mockery of the judicial power.'' This standard is contrary to the intent of the Tunney Act and effectively strips the courts of the ability to engage in meaningful review of antitrust settlements. Our bill will restore the original intent of the Tunney Act by First, providing that courts are to independently determine that antitrust settlements are in the public interest, second, setting forth a specific list of factors that a court must examine in the course of its public interest review--rather than may consider as the statute is currently written, and third, requiring the government establish that substantial evidence and reasoned analysis supports the government's belief that the consent judgment is in the public interest. These provisions will make clear that the court has the authority to conduct a meaningful review to ensure that antitrust settlements are not contrary to the public interest, or to competition. Second, the bill will enhance criminal penalties for those who violate our antitrust laws. It will increase the maximum corporate penalty from $10 to $100 million, will increase the maximum individual fine from $350,000 to $1 million, and increase the maximum jail term for individuals who are convicted of criminal antitrust violations from three to ten years. These changes will send the proper message that criminal antitrust violations--crimes such as price fixing and bid rigging--committed by business executives in a boardroom are serious offense that steal from American consumers just as effectively as does a street criminal with a gun. We have all learned through unfortunate experience in the last few years at some of our largest at most respected corporations the serious consequences of crime in the boardroom, with literally tens of millions of dollars being looted from shareholders. These examples of corporate malfeasance teach us that criminal sanctions for white collar crime must be serious enough to deter such misbehavior, and our bill will help ensure our antitrust penalties are strong enough to accomplish this mission. Finally, this bill will give the Justice Department significant new tools under its antitrust leniency program. The leniency program rewards the first member of a criminal antitrust conspiracy to admit its crime to the Justice Department by granting the wrongdoer criminal amnesty. This is an important tool for law enforcement officials to detect and break up cartels that fix prices and limit supply in our economy. This new provision will give the Justice Department the ability to offer those applying for leniency the additional reward of only facing actual damages in civil suits arising out of the antitrust conspiracy, rather than the treble damage liability to which they would otherwise be subject. This statutory change will remove a significant disincentive to those who would be likely to seek criminal amnesty and should result in a substantial increase in the number of antitrust conspiracies being detected. Each of these three reforms are important measures will significantly enhance the enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator DeWine, to introduce the ``Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2003.'' This important bipartisan antitrust reform bill will strengthen the procedures under which antitrust settlements are reviewed by the courts, will increase criminal penalties for the most egregious antitrust violations, and will enhance the Justice Department's existing leniency program to encourage more antitrust criminal wrongdoers to come forward and thereby significantly assist the Department in detecting and preventing antitrust conspiracies. This bill will accomplish three important goals. First, it will strengthen the review of the Justice Department's civil antitrust settlements under the Tunney Act. The Tunney Act is an important statute, passed nearly thirty years ago, that insures the public interest and consumers are protected when the Justice Department settles civil antitrust cases. The Tunney Act requires that, before entering any proposed consent judgment proposed by the Justice Department, the court must determine that the judgment is in the public interest. The statute also contains strict procedures for the public disclosure of proposed antitrust consent decrees and an opportunity for public comment. The Tunney Act was passed in 1974 in response to concerns that some Justice Department settlements were motivated by inappropriate political pressure and were simply inadequate to restore competition or protect consumers. Congress concluded that review by the district courts to be an essential safeguard to deter the Justice Department from settling cases without regard for the public interest or the interest of affected consumers. The Tunney Act was enacted to end the then-prevalent practice of district judges ``rubber stamping'' antitrust consent decrees. Unfortunately, in recent years, many courts--including specifically the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--have misconstrued the plain meaning of the Tunney Act and have returned to the practice of ``rubber stamp'' review of antitrust settlements. The controlling precedent in the D.C. Circuit is now that trial courts must enter antitrust consent decrees as long as they do not make a ``mockery of the judicial power.'' This standard is contrary to the intent of the Tunney Act and effectively strips the courts of the ability to engage in meaningful review of antitrust settlements. Our bill will restore the original intent of the Tunney Act by First, providing that courts are to independently determine that antitrust settlements are in the public interest, second, setting forth a specific list of factors that a court must examine in the course of its public interest review--rather than may consider as the statute is currently written, and third, requiring the government establish that substantial evidence and reasoned analysis supports the government's belief that the consent judgment is in the public interest. These provisions will make clear that the court has the authority to conduct a meaningful review to ensure that antitrust settlements are not contrary to the public interest, or to competition. Second, the bill will enhance criminal penalties for those who violate our antitrust laws. It will increase the maximum corporate penalty from $10 to $100 million, will increase the maximum individual fine from $350,000 to $1 million, and increase the maximum jail term for individuals who are convicted of criminal antitrust violations from three to ten years. These changes will send the proper message that criminal antitrust violations--crimes such as price fixing and bid rigging--committed by business executives in a boardroom are serious offense that steal from American consumers just as effectively as does a street criminal with a gun. We have all learned through unfortunate experience in the last few years at some of our largest at most respected corporations the serious consequences of crime in the boardroom, with literally tens of millions of dollars being looted from shareholders. These examples of corporate malfeasance teach us that criminal sanctions for white collar crime must be serious enough to deter such misbehavior, and our bill will help ensure our antitrust penalties are strong enough to accomplish this mission. Finally, this bill will give the Justice Department significant new tools under its antitrust leniency program. The leniency program rewards the first member of a criminal antitrust conspiracy to admit its crime to the Justice Department by granting the wrongdoer criminal amnesty. This is an important tool for law enforcement officials to detect and break up cartels that fix prices and limit supply in our economy. This new provision will give the Justice Department the ability to offer those applying for leniency the additional reward of only facing actual damages in civil suits arising out of the antitrust conspiracy, rather than the treble damage liability to which they would otherwise be subject. This statutory change will remove a significant disincentive to those who would be likely to seek criminal amnesty and should result in a substantial increase in the number of antitrust conspiracies being detected. Each of these three reforms are important measures will significantly enhance the enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray. I would like to refer to the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative which appears in the ``Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program'' at $250,000. This project is a collaborative effort of nine States in the Mid-West, AMTRAK and Federal Railroad Administration. This is a 3,000 mile system plan and I am concerned that $250,000 will not enable us to fully address the environmental and engineering associated with such a large regional system. Due to the extreme budget constraints facing this subcommittee I understand that it may be difficult to find additional resources for this study. However, I have been told that it would be helpful to the Mid-West Rail Coalition if prior contributions made by member States for planning activities prior to January 1, 2001 can be counted as the required State-match under this account. I am hopeful that you will support this effort as we move to conference on this appropriations bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Class Action Fairness bill. What those of us who are supportive of this bill are trying to do is simply get it to the floor where it can be debated, amended, and even filibustered, so I do not understand the objections of those who want to prevent the bill from even reaching the floor. Those who do not support the final bill as it would emerge can vote against it and can even filibuster it, which would require 60 votes at that time. My fear is those people who do not even want the bill to reach the floor in fact do not want--and I will bet we will not have--any class action reform. I believe many of those on the other side on this issue want to put this whole question of class action reform to bed and not address it at all. I would be willing to bet any of them we will not have any class action reform if in fact this bill we are proposing is prevented from even reaching the floor at this time. The bill that is being voted upon at 12:30 is a bill that has gone through the committee process in the most fair and democratic of ways. It has been years in the making. It has been amended at the committee level by Democrats as well as Republicans, and finally voted out of the committee on a bipartisan basis. This is the way bills are supposed to reach the floor for debate and amendment and final approval or disapproval. I cannot understand legitimate motivations of those who are in opposition, as they have expressed themselves, except as it may be their motivations are to kill class action reform entirely in this session of the Congress and for as long as we can look ahead and foresee. I urge my colleagues who want to see class action reform to allow this bill to reach the floor where it can be, as I said, fully debated and fully amended. I point out to them once again if in fact there is that kind of opposition to the bill that would finally emerge for final vote, they can require 60 votes. So all of their concerns as they have been expressed in this debate can still be addressed in that final vote, which could be, in fact, a filibuster vote. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed. I hope very much that we will have a chance to debate class action reform. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago when the Appropriations Committee marked up this $87 billion supplemental spending request from the President, we spent an entire day attempting to improve one of the largest supplemental requests in our history. Most of the amendments voted on that day were defeated on party-line votes, but the issues raised remain unresolved and continue to engage this body and the American people. We voted to send this request to the floor without prejudice, and it is no surprise that there has been tremendous interest in continuing to debate the substance of the funding proposed for Iraq, and the timing for disbursing that funding. The interest in this bill reflects the broader concerns that persist about the direction of our policy in Iraq. We need to take as much time as necessary to review the administration's plans to rebuild Iraq. By way of comparison, when Congress approved the Marshall plan, it spent 11 days debating an authorization bill submitted by the Truman administration before appropriating any funds. The time, planning, and extensive oversight that went into the Marshall plan helped ensure its success. Given the miscalculations that have occurred during our time in Iraq, it behooves us to be cautious and put in place mechanisms to ensure the most vigorous oversight of the reconstruction of Iraq. If we approve this supplemental--and I believe we will--every provision that we have added to this measure to increase accountability and to hold the administration to benchmarks and timetables must be retained in conference. I voted to support Senator Byrd's amendment to add reporting requirements for the Coalition Provisional Authority and to mandate GAO audits of Iraqi reconstruction activities and numerous other amendments were adopted by voice vote that strengthen our ability to oversee the disbursement of these funds. We could have done even more to guarantee the success of the ambitious nation building proposed by the administration if we had adopted the Leahy-Daschle amendment to transfer reconstruction authority from the Pentagon to the Department of State. It makes sense that those with the most expertise in this area be in charge of Iraq's reconstruction. The administration's indecision about how to manage the reconstruction suggests that we have not heard the last on this matter. Americans' sense of unease about United States policy in Iraq is compounded by the sheer size of this supplemental. I have heard from countless constituents who are concerned that we are spending vast resources in Iraq when we have so many pressing needs here at home. I share their sense of irony that we are sending money to Iraq to build roads and schools, to construct housing and health facilities, and to spur economic development, when these same needs go unmet in our own States. That is why I would have voted to support the Stabenow amendment to spend $5 billion on veterans' health care, school construction, health care and transportation needs here in the United States. Addressing these vital needs would have helped create as many as 95,000 jobs at a time when the numbers of unemployed who have given up and stopped looking for work at all is climbing. In this time of economic uncertainty, I have joined many of my colleagues in questioning why we have not been more responsible in paying for military operations and reconstruction costs in Iraq now, instead of burdening future generations with the staggering cost of this operation. That is why I voted for the Biden amendment that asked the wealthiest 1 percent of this Nation's taxpayers to give up a small portion of their future tax breaks to fully offset the $87 billion cost of the supplemental before us. And that is why I would have voted for the Dorgan amendment to require that Iraqi oil revenues be used as collateral to pay for the reconstruction in Iraq, an amendment I supported in the Appropriations Committee. Iraq is not a poor nation it has the second largest oil reserves in the world--and it is only a matter of time before the oil will begin flowing again. How can we worry about burdening the Iraqis with debt when our own debt looms so large? I hope that when Congress completes action on this bill, the Bayh amendment is a part of the final version and we will have found a way to have the Iraqis help pay for the cost of reconstruction. We also need to do much more to gain the support of the international community in this endeavor. The U.N. Security Council vote on Thursday was an important step in that direction but the resolution itself glossed over important differences with our allies. After the vote, representatives from Russia, France, and Germany made clear that they do not plan to lend further support issuing a joint statement saying, ``The conditions are not created for us to envisage any military commitment and no further financial contributions beyond our present engagement.'' I have always believed that before we commit troops abroad, we must do so with international support and involvement. As I said when I cast my vote to authorize the President to use force against Iraq, I did so with the belief that ``moving to disarm Saddam Hussein--in concert with the international community--was the President's great goal.'' And last year, before we voted, the President vowed to seek the support of the international community on Iraq. Working with the support of the international community made sense when we waged war against Iraq in 1991, and it would have made sense last year. I wish the President had taken the time to build a broader international consensus before we went into Iraq. The price of going it alone is being paid in many ways. We have damaged our relations with some of our oldest allies. Our attitude in Iraq, coupled with this administration's approach to other international efforts has done real damage to our image in the world. While reasonable people can disagree about whether the treaties, protocols, and conventions the United States has opted out of over the last few years were good or bad for our national security, the fact remains that our friends around the world were surprised, and in some cases snubbed by our actions. At the time we may have thought the cost of leaving them behind was small but the bill has now arrived--and the first installment is $87 billion. Even the ``coalition of the willing'' has come with a price. While the United Kingdom has stuck by us admirably, many of the other countries that the administration points to as cooperating with us in Iraq are being compensated for their efforts. A Washington Post article this summer pointed out that the international division headed by Poland will face roughly $240 million in expenses, $200 million of those will be paid by the United States. The supplemental before us contains some $900 million for Pakistan--to pay them to police part of their own border. Last year, the Congress and the Nation heard all about the advantages of unilateralism. We heard that only weak countries that could not control their own destinies had to wait for the approval of the United Nations or the international community. But now we are learning the limits of our own strength. We hear stories about how our military is stretched thin and we are asking more and more of our Reserve Forces. The United States military strategy was to be ready for two nearly simultaneous major military conflicts, but now it appears that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are pushing the military to the limit. I believe our Armed Forces are up to the job that lies before them, but we did not have to ask this much of them. Better coordination with our allies earlier this year, or even now, could do a lot to ease the burden on our men and women in uniform. While there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the reconstruction dollars included in this bill, no one has disputed that the military funding is crucial to the support of our troops in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform need the $67 billion included in this package to replace damaged equipment and stores of spare parts. They need it to buy necessities like body armor and improve security around facilities. They need it so they can move out of tents and into air conditioned barracks. Some of my colleagues may have opposed the war from the beginning, and others may now be doubting the value of this military adventure, but we all agree that the troops who are over there now need the best that we can give them to accomplish their mission quickly and safely. In that spirit, I supported the Dodd amendment that would have taken $322 million from Iraqi prison building and witness protection funds on the reconstruction side of this bill and would have used those funds to pay for sorely needed personnel equipment for our troops. I wish we could have considered the reconstruction funding separately. Much of that funding is far less urgent than the military spending in this bill. That is why I supported the Byrd amendment that would have separated the reconstruction funds from the $67 billion in defense funds. If we had approved that amendment, we surely would have approved the military and security funds expeditiously and then taken the necessary time for the administration to provide us with more specificity on the plan for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. Mr. President, we are being asked to approve this $87 billion request for Operation Iraqi Freedom; yet, no one can say authoritatively how long this operation will last. We are being asked to approve $87 billion when we have no information on the extent to which the international community will shoulder some of the burden of stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq. And we are being asked to approve $87 billion with no idea of how much more we will be asked to commit in taxpayer dollars and human lives. I plan to support this supplemental. I do so after having supported amendments to try to improve the reconstruction package, and I do so because we cannot delay any further the military spending so crucial to making this mission a success. We owe our fighting men and women in the field our full support and we owe the Iraqi people a fighting chance to rebuild their nation. And while it may be true that these debts were amassed through misguided policies of unilateralism, they are debts nonetheless, and they must be paid. So I will vote for this supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Court Interpreters Grant Program Act of 2003. This bill would create a modest Federal grant program to support the State court interpreter services. Currently, court interpreting services vary greatly by State--some States have highly developed programs, others are trying to get programs running but lack adequate funds, and still others have no program at all. This inconsistency creates the potential for poorly translated court proceedings, or court proceedings that are not translated at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by funding State court interpreter programs. According to the 2000 Census, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. As these individuals with limited English proficiency come into the court system to seek redress or to defend themselves against allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing, it is critical to the fair administration of justice that they be able to understand their court proceedings. At the Federal level, court interpreting services are provided as needed by trained and certified interpreters. Similarly, some States have robust and effective court interpreter programs in their State courts. These States recruit, train, test and certify individuals in all necessary languages. However, many States have limited programs which may test and certify interpreters for only one language. Such States may have only a small number of interpreters certified to interpret courtroom proceedings. Still other States have no program at all. We have heard horror stories of ``amateur'' interpreters attempting to translate courtroom events. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports: ``In one juvenile court, a juvenile defendant had to interpret for his parents. In a Monroe County [Pennsylvania] court, a member of an anti-domestic violence group was asked to interpret for an alleged victim, despite having a clear bias.'' The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. A lack of qualified interpreters can create serious problems in the justice system. For example, a poorly interpreted trial may be appealed on the grounds that justice was not administered fairly. Those appeals clog up the courts. In addition, where there are inadequate resources available, interpreters may not be able to keep up with the caseload and trials may be delayed unreasonably and in violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial. This is not just a State issue. First and foremost, the right to a fair trial is a federally protected right under the Constitution. The Federal Government therefore has a role to play in ensuring that State courts are holding fair trials. In addition, State budget crises have reduced the ability of the courts to pay for interpreter services. At the same time, requests for interpreter services have skyrocketed over the past several years all around the country. Although Spanish is by far the most requested language to be translated in courtrooms, court officials report regular or occasional need for Russian, German, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Afghani, Armenian, Punjabi, Hindi, Arabic, Somali, Polish and many other languages. The coincidence of budget cuts and increased demand threatens federally-guaranteed due process and justifies Federal assistance. This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million for each of the next five fiscal years for a grant program to the States. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Support for this legislation comes from State court administrators across the country. In fact, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators this summer adopted a resolution urging Congress to establish a national program to assist State courts in providing court interpreters services. I hope my colleagues will help the court systems in their States to provide critical court interpreting services to their constituents. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Court Interpreters Grant Program Act of 2003. This bill would create a modest Federal grant program to support the State court interpreter services. Currently, court interpreting services vary greatly by State--some States have highly developed programs, others are trying to get programs running but lack adequate funds, and still others have no program at all. This inconsistency creates the potential for poorly translated court proceedings, or court proceedings that are not translated at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by funding State court interpreter programs. According to the 2000 Census, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. As these individuals with limited English proficiency come into the court system to seek redress or to defend themselves against allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing, it is critical to the fair administration of justice that they be able to understand their court proceedings. At the Federal level, court interpreting services are provided as needed by trained and certified interpreters. Similarly, some States have robust and effective court interpreter programs in their State courts. These States recruit, train, test and certify individuals in all necessary languages. However, many States have limited programs which may test and certify interpreters for only one language. Such States may have only a small number of interpreters certified to interpret courtroom proceedings. Still other States have no program at all. We have heard horror stories of ``amateur'' interpreters attempting to translate courtroom events. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports: ``In one juvenile court, a juvenile defendant had to interpret for his parents. In a Monroe County [Pennsylvania] court, a member of an anti-domestic violence group was asked to interpret for an alleged victim, despite having a clear bias.'' The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. A lack of qualified interpreters can create serious problems in the justice system. For example, a poorly interpreted trial may be appealed on the grounds that justice was not administered fairly. Those appeals clog up the courts. In addition, where there are inadequate resources available, interpreters may not be able to keep up with the caseload and trials may be delayed unreasonably and in violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial. This is not just a State issue. First and foremost, the right to a fair trial is a federally protected right under the Constitution. The Federal Government therefore has a role to play in ensuring that State courts are holding fair trials. In addition, State budget crises have reduced the ability of the courts to pay for interpreter services. At the same time, requests for interpreter services have skyrocketed over the past several years all around the country. Although Spanish is by far the most requested language to be translated in courtrooms, court officials report regular or occasional need for Russian, German, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Afghani, Armenian, Punjabi, Hindi, Arabic, Somali, Polish and many other languages. The coincidence of budget cuts and increased demand threatens federally-guaranteed due process and justifies Federal assistance. This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million for each of the next five fiscal years for a grant program to the States. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Support for this legislation comes from State court administrators across the country. In fact, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators this summer adopted a resolution urging Congress to establish a national program to assist State courts in providing court interpreters services. I hope my colleagues will help the court systems in their States to provide critical court interpreting services to their constituents. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. I rise today to voice my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. His amendment allows us to fully offset the $87 billion cost of the supplemental before us by increasing slightly the top tax rate in the years 2005 to 2010. This top tax rate--which is paid only by the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers--was cut dramatically in the two tax cut bills passed since President Bush took office. There is broad consensus for the $67 billion in this request for military and defense spending. And even those of us who voted yesterday to cut $15 billion in reconstruction funding did so to make the point that we have lingering questions about the nature of this funding and who will pay for it. However, our support for funding our obligations in Iraq doesn't mean that we support adding to the exploding deficits our Nation is now facing. The Biden amendment does not question whether we should fund the war--it addresses how we finance our necessary obligations. The President has proposed paying for the entire $87 billion with debt. In a time when our deficit is projected to top half a trillion dollars a year, this choice is unsupportable. Our ballooning government debt sucks capital from a private sector struggling to recover lost manufacturing jobs. The debt places upward pressure on interest rates, wreaking havoc on the family budgets of those carrying home loans or consumer debt. The billions we pay in debt service each year is billions that does not go to our schools, our roads, or our growing homeland security needs. And a crippling debt is a terrible legacy for future generations--generations that had no say in our current policies in Iraq. Financing this war with debt is a costly and unwise choice. The Biden amendment offers another way to pay for what we have an obligation to do. On September 7, the President said in a speech to the Nation that the war and reconstruction of Iraq would require ``time and sacrifice.'' For months, we have asked the young men and women of the Armed Forces to make the ultimate sacrifice: to fight--and perhaps die--for this country. Senator Biden's amendment asks another group--the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans to also sacrifice--to accept a small increase in a tax rate that was greatly decreased by the Bush tax cuts. The Senator's amendment offsets the cost of the President's request by asking the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those in the 35 percent bracket, to forego approximately $90 billion of the $690 billion in tax cuts they were granted in the two tax bills we have passed since President Bush took office. A taxpayer in the top 1 percent has an average income of $1 million a year. Asking for some financial sacrifice from these taxpayers seems the least onerous of the options for financing this war. Whatever we decide to do with this spending request, we must pay for it now. Offsetting the cost of this supplemental is the right thing to do. It asks those who have benefited the most from our thriving economy to help keep that economy healthy by reducing our growing debt burden. It relieves future generations of the staggering bill for a policy they had no part in setting. And it sends a signal to our Armed Forces that, when the President calls for sacrifice, he is not only calling on them. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Yesterday, a Federal judge in Oklahoma voided the Federal Trade Commission's national Do Not Call list that was set to go into effect next week. This action frustrates the wishes of more than 48 million Americans who have signed up for the list. I am pleased that we will overturn that judge's questionable decision today. Americans have spoken very clearly on this issue and it is our responsibility to respond. Though a judge ruled that the FTC lacked congressional authority to create this national Do Not Call Registry, I strongly disagree and believe that earlier this year Congress explicitly granted the Commission both the authority and the funding to create the registry. Indeed, absent congressional action, the FTC's Do Not Call initiative would have failed to become a reality this year. I discussed the matter with FTC Chairman Tim Muris at a hearing before the Antitrust Subcommittee last September. He asked me for help in getting congressional authority in order to raise fees necessary to implement the Do Not Call list. We were able to grant the Commission this authority in the consolidated appropriations resolution which passed in February of this year. We further authorized the FTC's list in the Do Not Call Implementation Act on March 11, 2003. These actions more than authorized the FTC's rulemaking in my view. That said, this bill will make it crystal clear that Congress endorses, supports, and authorizes the FTC to create a national Do Not Call Registry. I commend the FTC's hard work to create a national Do Not Call list. Such action was long overdue. The deluge of telemarketing sales calls is the number one consumer complaint in this country. It is a problem that has gotten out of control. The average American receives two to three telemarketing calls per day. Some estimate that the telemarketing industry is able to make 560 calls per second or roughly 24 million calls per day. No wonder people feel like they are under siege in their own home. Wisconsin recently implemented a similar, statewide Do Not Call list last year. During the first 3-month registration period, more than 2 million residents placed their phone numbers on the list, which is 40 percent of Wisconsin's population. Such a positive response demands further action at the Federal level. That is why we in Congress acted earlier this year to ensure that the FTC's Do Not Call list became a reality. Should we need to do more to overcome a court's objections, we can and shall do it today. Providing consumers the option to stop telemarketing calls is something on which we can all agree. Given the enormous response of nearly 50 million Americans who have signed up in less than 3 months, the Do Not Call list is clearly needed. Though I am troubled by the court's decision, we can set the record straight and authorize the FTC's action. I urge quick passage of this legislation so that the Do Not Call list can start up as scheduled on October 1, 2003.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, regrettably, a Federal judge in Oklahoma has voided the Federal Trade Commission's national ``do not call'' list that was set to go into effect on October 1. This action frustrates the wishes of more than 48 million Americans who have signed up for the ``do not call'' list. Though a judge ruled that the FTC lacked Congressional authority to create the national list, I strongly disagree and believe that Congress explicitly granted the Commission both the authority and the funding earlier this year to create a ``do not call'' list. Indeed, absent Congressional action, the FTC's ``do not call'' list would have failed to have become a reality this year. I recall discussing the matter with FTC Chairman Tim Muris at a hearing before the Antitrust Subcommittee last September. He asked me for help in getting Congressional authority in order to raise fees necessary to implement the ``do not call'' list. We were able to grant the Commission this authority in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution which passed in February of this year. We further authorized the FTC's initiative in the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on March 11, 2003. These actions more than authorized the FTC's ``do not call'' list, in my view. That said, this bill will make it crystal clear that Congress endorses, supports, and authorizes the FTC to create a national ``do not call'' registry. I commend the FTC's hard work to create a national ``do not call'' list. Such action was long overdue. The deluge of telemarketing sales calls is the number one consumer complaint in this country. It is a problem that has gotten out of control. The average American receives two to three telemarketing calls per day. I often receive even more than that. Some estimate that the telemarketing industry is able to make 560 calls per second or roughly 24 million calls per day. No wonder people feel like they are under siege in their own home. Therefore, we in Congress acted to ensure that the FTC's ``do not call'' list became a reality. Should we need to do more to overcome a court's objections, we can and shall do it. Given the enormous response of nearly 50 million Americans who have signed up in less than 3 months, the ``do not call'' list is clearly needed. Though I am troubled by the court's decision, we can set the record straight and authorize the FTC's action. I urge quick passage of this legislation, so that the ``do not call'' list can start up as scheduled on October 1, 2003.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Joseph and Vivian Safranek, long-time residents of Wisconsin, on their 60th wedding anniversary. Joseph and Vivian met at the Pine Mountain Ski tournament in 1942 when Joseph offered Vivian a ride in his convertible. It was the beginning of an incredible journey. The couple was married at Kingsford's Our Redeemer Lutheran Church on September 18, 1943. After living in the Upper Peninsula, Joseph and Vivian moved to Milwaukee in 1950. Life wasn't always easy; money was tight, and they had four children to raise. But from the beginning, they persisted by supporting each other with lasting love and devotion. Joseph worked for over 30 years as a route salesman, first at Milwaukee Cheese Company, then at Continental Baking. He knew my dad, and remembers me as ``one of Max's boys.'' Today, many years later, their story continues. Their four children have grown up to be successful adults themselves, providing Joseph and Vivian with seven grandchildren and soon, their first great-grandchild. Their legacy is one of hard-work, determination, and a strong family. I join their many friends and their family in celebration as we honor Joseph and Vivian Safranek on their 60th wedding anniversary. They are the very best Wisconsin has to offer, and I wish them continued joy and happiness.