Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, this is a noncontroversial amendment I hope will be accepted later today. It addresses the tragedy of abuse and neglect in our Nation's nursing homes and other long-term care settings. Our seniors made our country what it is today, and they have earned the right to live out their days with dignity and the best possible care. For most seniors in long-term care, they have that opportunity. The vast majority of nursing homes, home health agencies and other long- term care providers do a good job taking care of their patients under difficult circumstances. But too often across this country, there have been and continues to be cases in which our elderly and disabled are abused, beaten, starved, or neglected. Last year, a House Government Reform Committee report found that nearly one-third of nursing homes had been cited for an abuse violation in the past 2 years. Ten percent of nursing homes had violations that caused actual harm or placed residents in immediate jeopardy of injury or death. The Senate Aging Committee, on which I serve, has repeatedly heard from the GAO that abuse and neglect are a major problem in our Nation's nursing homes. Tucked away in this appropriations bill is a little program that has a big impact on these problems. The State Long-Term Care Ombudsmen Program places caring people throughout each State to assist elderly and disabled patients who have been abused or neglected. The ombudsmen have the responsibility to make sure that patients' complaints are investigated and addressed. They help these vulnerable people and their families navigate the complicated system and get the help they need. In addition, the ombudsmen work with nursing homes to improve care. They also serve a large number of patients in home health care and assisted living. In cases where a nursing home must be closed because it cannot or will not improve, the ombudsmen help patients relocate to the best possible setting. Unfortunately, a lack of funding and staff make it difficult for the ombudsmen to serve the large number of people who need their services-- leaving patients vulnerable to substandard care. A recent Administration on Aging report found that complaints to ombudsmen increased 48 percent from 1996 to 2001. Yet funding still lags far behind what is needed. Ombudsmen are being asked to do more and more, and Congress should make sure they have the resources to do their jobs. I greatly appreciate the chairman and ranking member's willingness to work with me over the past several years to increase funding for the ombudsman program. Through our efforts, we have increased funding by $6 million since fiscal year 2000. This is a great start. But I have been advised by the National Association of Ombudsman Programs that it would take a $36 million increase to adequately fund the program. I realize that such a large increase is not possible in a single year--especially a year that has such tight fiscal constraints as this one. But I am concerned that the bill before us includes no increase at all. This amendment would take another small but real step forward by increasing the program by $1 million this year. This increase will help ombudsmen keep up with the growing demand for their services. And it will help make sure that patients are better protected from abuse at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me. I know we all have the same goal of making sure our seniors are adequately protected in law term care. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KOHL. I do appreciate that. As I say, it will take $36 million, in our judgment, to adequately fund the entire program. I know very well that is not possible. That is not going to happen. I could pick out a figure larger or smaller than a million, and it was Senator Dirksen who did say a million or a billion added up to quite a bit of money. I do recognize $1 million is a lot of money, but considered in the context of what we are talking about and the importance of the program, which I know the Senator from Pennsylvania agrees, $1 million is a reasonable number. I would not impose on the Senator the burden of having to make a difficult decision if that number were considerably larger. So I am asking for the support of the Senator with respect to a rather nominal number when we are considering the people we are talking about and the need for our service to them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Disable Workers Empowerment. Under current law, millions of disabled Americans are unable to claim a tax deduction for many of the expenses they incur as a result of their disabilities. This creates a significant barrier to their leading productive and rewarding lives through employment. For example, in order to work, an individual who uses a wheelchair might need to hire a personal attendant to provide transportation to and from the job site. At a time when we are doing everything in our power to assist individuals looking for employment, it is counterintuitive to retain legislation that prevents some from seeking employment. While current law allows a limited deduction for disabled workers' expenses, this deduction is limited to expenses that are necessary for the individual to perform work satisfactorily. This means, for example, that a blind individual could only claim a deduction for the cost of using a reading service at the workplace and during normal work hours. In addition, if this individual does not itemize his or her tax returns, the individual would receive no deduction. This legislation would correct this inequity. Under this bill, whether or not the individual itemizes, he or she would be able to claim a deduction for the overtime services that they require, regardless of itemizing his or her return. This is just one example of the dozens of, often expensive, services that better enable people with disabilities to do their jobs. I believe we need to do more to encourage individuals with disabilities and the desire to seek out employment. Current law perpetuates an iniquity that discourages people from living the fullest possible life. I believe this legislation goes a long way in correcting a shortcoming in current law, and will remove a barrier for millions of disabled workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and hope to see its passage this year. 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 Disable Workers Empowerment. Under current law, millions of disabled Americans are unable to claim a tax deduction for many of the expenses they incur as a result of their disabilities. This creates a significant barrier to their leading productive and rewarding lives through employment. For example, in order to work, an individual who uses a wheelchair might need to hire a personal attendant to provide transportation to and from the job site. At a time when we are doing everything in our power to assist individuals looking for employment, it is counterintuitive to retain legislation that prevents some from seeking employment. While current law allows a limited deduction for disabled workers' expenses, this deduction is limited to expenses that are necessary for the individual to perform work satisfactorily. This means, for example, that a blind individual could only claim a deduction for the cost of using a reading service at the workplace and during normal work hours. In addition, if this individual does not itemize his or her tax returns, the individual would receive no deduction. This legislation would correct this inequity. Under this bill, whether or not the individual itemizes, he or she would be able to claim a deduction for the overtime services that they require, regardless of itemizing his or her return. This is just one example of the dozens of, often expensive, services that better enable people with disabilities to do their jobs. I believe we need to do more to encourage individuals with disabilities and the desire to seek out employment. Current law perpetuates an iniquity that discourages people from living the fullest possible life. I believe this legislation goes a long way in correcting a shortcoming in current law, and will remove a barrier for millions of disabled workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and hope to see its passage this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday we voted on a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of William Pryor to be a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. After careful consideration of his candidacy, I had no choice but to oppose his confirmation in the Judiciary Committee last week and opposed cloture on his nomination as well. When considering a nominee to a Federal court judgeship, we consider the nominee's legal skills, judgment, reputation, and acumen. The nominee should be learned in the law. And the nominee should be well regarded among his peers in his or her community. Perhaps most important of all is the nominee's judicial temperament. An appeals court judge's solemn duty and paramount obligation is to do justice fairly, impartially, and without favor. An appeals court judge must be open minded, must be willing to set his or her personal preferences aside, and must be able to judge without predisposition. And, of course, he or she must follow controlling precedent faithfully, and be able to disregard completely any views he or she holds to the contrary. In the case of Attorney General Pryor, we are presented with a nominee whose views are so extreme that he fails this basic test. In case after case, and on issue after issue, Attorney General Pryor has a public record of taking the most extreme position, often at odds with controlling Supreme Court precedent, and in the most hard-line and inflexible manner. Pryor's views are outside of the mainstream on issues affecting civil rights, women's rights, disability rights, religious freedom, and the right to privacy. He assures us that despite these views, he will follow settled law and Supreme Court precedent. After making extreme statements to the committee and in his hearing and refusing to disavow other zealous positions that he has taken throughout his career, he wants us to believe that he will blindly follow the law as a judge. Let me make clear that the mere fact that Attorney General Pryor opposes abortion is not the reason I oppose him today. I have voted to confirm literally hundreds of judges, nominees who have both supported and opposed abortion. It is not Attorney General Pryor's views on whether or not he believes legal abortion is good public policy which concern me. Instead, the crucial issue is whether Attorney General Pryor can put his personal views aside and apply the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court. It is my conclusion that he cannot. His inability to set his personal views aside has been demonstrated most explicitly in his activist attempts to challenge numerous federal statutes. He has chosen to expand on his cramped view of federalism and challenge the ability of the Federal Government to remedy discriminatory practices. Many of the cases in which he took his most extreme legal positions were on behalf of the State of Alabama where he had the sole decision under state law as to what legal position to assert. These cases include his assertion of federalism claims to defeat provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act; his opposition to Congress's authority to provide victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court; his argument that Congress exceeding its authority in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act; and many other cases. The extreme legal positions advanced in these cases were fully and entirely the responsibility of Attorney General Pryor. Of course, Attorney General Pryor has every right to hold his views, whether we agree with him or not. He can run for office and serve in the legislative or executive branches should he convince a majority of his fellow Alabamans that he is fit to represent them. But he has no right to be a Federal appeals court judge. Only those who we are convinced are impartial, unbiased, fair, and whose only guiding ideology is to follow the Constitution to apply equal justice to all are fit for this position. Unfortunately, we can have no confidence that he will set these views aside and faithfully follow the Constitution and binding precedent. For these reasons, I must oppose his confirmation. I would be remiss if I did not address briefly--for a brief remark is all this point is worth--the destructive charges that those of us who oppose Mr. Pryor are anti-Catholic. The people who have put forward this charge engage in the worst form of personal destruction. These allegation are beneath the dignity of the process and beneath the dignity of the Senate and must be rejected by everyone involved. One last point. The Judiciary Committee began an investigation into statements made by the nominee before this committee, Unfortunately, that investigation has not been completed, so I am not ready at this time to judge whether Mr. Pryor lied to the Judiciary committee at his hearing with regard to his involvement in fundraising activities. This investigation involves very serious matters and must be allowed to proceed. I will vote no.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements. As a former businessman, I understand that trade has always been an important part of our economy. American workers are so productive that access to foreign markets is key to their prosperity. Last year alone the State of Wisconsin exported $10.6 billion worth of goods around the world. Unfortunately, because the Administration chose to abuse the fast track process and include unrelated immigration issues in these agreements, I was not able to support these agreements. My opposition to these agreements is not based on the tariff reductions and market access measures included in the bills. Agreements between the U.S. and these countries make good economic sense. Canada and Europe already have free trade agreements with Chile and it has hurt our access to that market. While U.S. products face a 10 percent tariff, the same products from other countries do not. In Wisconsin we sell large mining equipment and bulldozers to Chile, but since 2000 our sales of mining equipment has tailed off. There may be many reasons for this reduction in commerce, but the fact that we face a 10 percent tariff, while our competitors from Europe do not, is not helping. This agreement will go far toward giving U.S. companies a fair and even playing field. That said, our trade policy with other countries has been far from an unqualified success. Since 2000 Wisconsin has lost 70,000 manufacturing jobs. Almost one out of every eight jobs in the state in manufacturing has disappeared. Some of this job loss is a result of the recession. Some of these jobs have been moved to Mexico, and some of these have been unable to compete with low wages in China. Most damaging, however, may be the currency manipulation of the Chinese Government. Some experts believe the Chinese may be artificially keeping their currency undervalued by as much as 50 percent. This means products from China are 50 percent cheaper than they would normally be. This is on top of low wages and almost no environmental regulations, which also work to depress prices. Trade can only work when countries obey the rules and follow the law. I supported bringing China into the WTO because that would make it harder for them to cheat on their agreements. However, this administration has proven unwilling to press this currency issue with the Chinese. They have allowed the problem to fester unchecked, and our manufacturing base is paying the price. The agreements before us now, however, are not with countries that have a history of avoiding their commitments, or that do not enforce their labor laws, or with countries that are ruled by dictatorships. Singapore and Chile are responsible democracies with solid labor laws and labor unions. In the case of Singapore, the wage rates are comparable, although not the same, as the United States. Chile and Singapore have little in common with China, and should not be painted with the same broad brush. These countries also represent a significantly smaller portion of our foreign trade. Singapore represents 1.7 percent, and Chile represents 0.3 percent of total U.S. Trade, exports and imports combined and opening our market to them will have much less impact on our economy than our opening to China. Many have criticized these agreements because the labor provisions attached to the agreement are not strong enough. A recent United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement had much stronger labor provisions than the agreements before us now. That agreement had real accountability and real consequences if Jordan failed to keep up its side of the bargain. The administration argues that Chile and Singapore have responsible laws that are adequately enforced, and so do not need the highly prescriptive language that was included in the Jordan agreement. I agree with their arguments. Let me be clear about the following. While these labor provisions may be adequate for Chile and Singapore, countries with good records, they should not be used as a model for future multilateral agreements in the region. The Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement will need substantially stricter labor and environmental provisions than these to get my vote. Large multilateral agreements with countries that are only fledgling democracies and have poor records of protecting workers cannot be treated in the same manner as Chile and Singapore. Even though these agreements had problems and were not perfect, I was inclined to support them because I generally vote to support free trade. I felt these countries would be good partners and these agreements would be unlikely to have any significant negative impact on our economy. But the administration pushed the envelope of fast track too far when immigration provisions were included in the implementing legislation. Both trade agreements contain provisions which create a new visa category for the temporary entry of business professionals. These provisions were negotiated as part of the larger trade agreement by the United States Trade Representative, USTR, which has no specific authority to implement new visa categories or make modifications to our temporary entry system. Further, these provisions were negotiated without the direction of Congress, which has traditionally debated and decided upon our Nation's immigration policy. These actions by the USTR set a dangerous precedent for immigration policy to be negotiated behind closed doors without a complete debate. Both our Nation's security and its diversity depend on well-considered immigration policy. Second, the administration transmitted the implementing language for these trade agreements to the Senate before responding to concerns expressed at a Judiciary Committee hearing. This language is unamendable once transmitted, so it is critical that Congress be consulted fully on implementing language before transmission. Immigration policy lies squarely in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee; for the administration to finalize immigration language before the Judiciary Committee has had a chance to analyze a draft and improve the language is an unacceptable way to do business. These agreements I have decided to oppose will undoubtedly pass. Chile and Singapore have shown they are willing to play by the rules, and have democracies who will hold them accountable if they undermine their own labor and environmental laws. I expect there will be disputes in the future, there always are between partners, but Chile and Singapore will work with us to settle those disagreements when they come around. However, future agreements with countries with lower standards will have to do more to secure labor and environmental rights before I will support them. We need to move back toward the United States-Jordan model, back toward more accountability in trade agreements before this administration can expect my vote in favor of FTAA or CAFTA. This undermining of the fast-track procedure, however, cannot be repeated. I voted for fast track, and support it as a way to give the President the ability to negotiate with other countries in good faith, but it should not be used for issues that are not trade related. Future agreements that carry unrelated provisions will not get my vote. I hope the administration hears this message and gets back to the business of focusing on our trade agenda, and leaving the immigration issues to the Congress where they belong.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Joseph and Vivian Safranek for a marriage that has lasted 60 years. It was in 1942 in the town of Iron Mountain, MI that Joseph first offered Vivian a ride home after working at the Pine Mountain ski tournament. She accepted the ride and soon after accepted his marriage proposal. On September 18, 1943 in Kingsford, MI's Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, the two celebrated their union. After 7 years and two children, Joseph and Vivian decided to make the move to the great State of Wisconsin. The 1950s and 60s were hard times for the Safraneks. They lived in the west side of Milwaukee in a small apartment with no running water. Joseph worked as a route salesman for the Milwaukee Cheese Co. and then at the Continental Baking Co. And even though money was tight, there was always more than enough good Wisconsin cheese and Wonder bread to go around. Sixty years is a long time and a lot of memories. Their successful union could be measured in years or even tender moments. But even more impressive a measure is their four wonderful children and seven grandchildren. A marriage of 60 years is an impressive and rare accomplishment. Today, I express my deepest admiration for the Safraneks--the love, the laughter, the family and the marriage that, while not born in Wisconsin, symbolizes Wisconsin and its values at their best.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today on National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day to commemorate those who served alongside the United States to protect democracy in Southeast Asia. Since 1995, the day of July 22nd has been celebrated as the Nation's official day recognizing the commitment and sacrifice of the Lao-Hmong people. Beginning in the 1960s the United States recruited thousands of the Lao-Hmong citizens to fight against the Communist North Vietnamese Army. The United States relied heavily on support from the Lao-Hmong units to engage in direct combat with the adversary from 1960 to 1975. Although heavily outnumbered, the Lao-Hmong courageously battled to disrupt supply flows which ran along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In the name of democracy, the Lao-Hmong protected U.S. personnel, defended U.S. Air Force radar installations, collected critical intelligence about enemy operations, and undertook rescue missions to save the lives of downed U.S. pilots. In doing so, the Lao-Hmong lost more than 35,000 lives and many more were seriously injured and disabled. Decades of war separated the Lao-Hmong from their native land. Now the Lao-Hmong in these United States can call America their home. The great State of Wisconsin has over many years become a population center for the Lao-Hmong community. Now citizens of the United States, the Lao-Hmong contribute richly to our Wisconsin communities. On July 22, 1995, the first National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day was celebrated in Denver, CO. This year, in my home State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee has been chosen to host the 2003 celebration. The purpose of celebrating this historic day is to memorialize the departed and to honor the living for their valor in defense of freedom and democracy. While acknowledging and respecting the commitment the Lao- Hmong people gave the United States during the Vietnam War, we are honored to celebrate their lives today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my distinguished colleagues for the clarification.

Mr. KOHL. Section 453 of S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act, makes changes to current law regarding physician referrals to hospitals in which they have an ownership or investment interest. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, related to the ``exception'' language included in the bill. Specifically, I would like to know whether the ``exception'' language is applicable to The Wisconsin Heart Hospital, a hospital which is currently under construction in the state of Wisconsin. This facility is scheduled to open in January of 2004. My understanding is that this provision will not apply to facilities which are ``under development'' as of June 12, 2003. The following is a summary of the status of the development of The Wisconsin Heart Hospital: One, architectural plans for the hospital have been completed. Two, construction of the facility is approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete as of June 12, 2003. This estimate can be supported by invoices for materials, labor and planning, as well as the timeline for completion dictated by the projected opening date of the hospital. Furthermore, more than $13.3 million in construction costs have been expended. Three, all applicable zoning requirements have been satisfied by local governing authorities and can be supported by documentation. In addition, The Wisconsin Heart Hospital has committed $260,000 to improve the fresh water supply to surrounding community, unrelated to the hospital construction. Four, State and local building approval processes are ongoing. The facility is subject to monthly inspections by state and local officials. Five, nearly $20 million in equipment purchases and/or vendor contract commitments can be documented by officials from the facility. Six, medical staff bylaws, policies and procedures have been adopted by The Wisconsin Heart Hospital Board. Seven, all equity funding has been received. In excess of $35 million in temporary debt financing has been secured for the facility. Of that $35 million, approximately $10 million has been borrowed; the remaining $25 million will be borrowed prior to the end of 2003. Permanent bond financing for the facility has already been initiated and is expected to be secured by November 2003. This permanent bond financing will be used to replace the temporary financing referred to above, as well as to provide additional financing for the facility. Based on the information stated above, is it your understanding that the ``exception'' language would apply to The Wisconsin Heart Hospital?

Mr. KOHL. Additionally, the language of the bill specifically states that in determining whether a hospital is ``under development as of June 12, 2003, the Secretary shall consider whether . . . necessary approvals from appropriate state agencies have been received.'' You are probably aware that laws in many states, including Wisconsin, prohibit hospitals from receiving a license to operate from relevant state agencies until the facility is structurally complete and fully capable of operating as a hospital. Would you please clarify the Committee's intent with respect to this potential licensure issue for hospitals which are already under development

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the $100 million included in the legislative branch appropriations bill for the AmeriCorps service program. It gives me great pride to know that more than 27,000 people of all ages and backgrounds are helping solve problems and strengthen communities through 79 national service projects across Wisconsin. This year alone, more than 700 individuals have committed to serve in Wisconsin communities as AmeriCorps members. To date, more than 3,900 Wisconsin residents have qualified for education awards totaling more than $17,000,000. It is a tragedy to think just a few days ago, all of this may have been brought to a halt. It is with the swift action of the Senate last Friday, in preserving the $100 million appropriation to make AmeriCorps whole, that we are able to ensure that AmeriCorps continues to provide every opportunity for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to engage in service. AmeriCorps has proven an excellent outlet through which people may get involved in their community. Throughout the State of Wisconsin, AmeriCorps volunteers work closely with local nonprofit agencies and K through 12 schools. These individuals perform substantial amounts of direct service that have benefited our State's citizens. They are tutoring and mentoring students in schools and afterschool programs, teaching children and adults how to read, building and rehabilitating low-income housing, providing street outreach to runaway and homeless youth, cultivating community gardens, and most importantly, demonstrating to others the joy that a selfless act can bring and in return, recruiting others to become volunteers. As our Nation faces a period of uncertainty, AmeriCorps programs are in a position to help build a stronger, more engaged citizenry while tackling some of our country's most pressing problems. Last week, the Senate was able to show its commitment to volunteerism all across the country by sustaining such a vital program at such a crucial time. I am pleased that the Senate voted to maintain this funding in the bill, and I hope that the House of Representatives will agree in conference to retain it. Without such action, the critical services AmeriCorps programs have provided over the years would not be possible and the communities that have come to rely on AmeriCorps would suffer.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act. This bill is good for drug companies, insurance companies, and people who make TV ads for politicians--but it is not good for Wisconsin seniors. I know that many of my colleagues will vote for this legislation and that it will pass the Senate. I know that many of my colleagues believe that this is a first step, if an imperfect one. I would like to agree with them. I would like to vote for a bipartisan compromise that delivers even a part of the drug benefit our seniors rightly demand. But this is not that bill. This is, instead, an empty promise of straightforward help for seniors struggling with crippling drug costs. When they figure out the details--when they see the costs--when they understand the limited benefit provided--when they work through the complicated formulas determining whether they ought to sign up--when they see the drug industry continue to raise their prices and reap record profits--they will--rightly, rightly--revolt. I warn my colleagues, this is no bird in the hand--it is a vulture. And I cannot support it. I cannot support a so-called benefit that asks many seniors, for months at a time, to pay premiums but receive absolutely no help with their drug costs. I cannot support a ``benefit'' that could cause up to 37 percent of retirees to lose their retiree health plans, leaving their former employees worse off than before we passed this bill. And I cannot support a ``benefit'' which is denied to low-income seniors eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. A ``benefit'' of no benefit for seniors above average drug costs, for seniors with decent retiree plans, for seniors who are poor. I also cannot support a plan that neither I nor anyone in this body can explain because its details depend on the vagaries of a private market that doesn't exist yet. Under this system, seniors could be forced into a different plan, pay a different premium, and have different medicines covered every year. Insurance companies can come in and out, leaving seniors lost and confused in a maze of paperwork and choices every year. And we know that for those insurance companies that do participate, premiums are sure to increase because there is no limitation on premiums in this law. I also cannot support a plan that relies so heavily on the private sector to offer something they have never been willing to offer before. Drug-only plans are virtually nonexistent in today's marketplace. And the Medicare+Choice experiment, which also uses private insurance companies, has not worked in Wisconsin and in many other States. I cannot support a plan that has to pay insurance companies huge subsidies in order to offer a drug benefit. Not only is there no guarantee that they will participate; but precious Medicare dollars that could be used to pay directly for medicines are wasted, funneled to a drug industry that, last I checked, was not in need of a Federal handout. Even worse, this plan does not take advantage of the potential for controlling drug costs by utilizing the purchasing power of the millions of Medicare beneficiaries. I do not want to point out that aside from the Medicare drug benefit, there are several provisions that I strongly in this bill. I am very pleased that the bill includes long-needed reforms that will finally take a strong step toward fixing the distorted Medicare system we have today--a system that penalizes Wisconsin health care providers by paying them less than other States, and a system that penalizes Wisconsin seniors by offering them fewer benefits than seniors in other States enjoy. Not only is this unfair for people in the Medicare system; it also increases costs for Wisconsin businesses, employees, and families, who pay higher costs to make up the Medicare shortfall. The bill before us changes many of Medicare's payment systems, especially for rural areas, and goes a long way toward making Medicare fair for seniors and providers, no matter where they live. I am also pleased that the bill includes provisions to make generic drugs more available to all Americans. It will close loopholes in our current law that keep generics off the market and keep drug prices too high for too long. The CBO estimates that this provision will save Americans $60 billion over 10 years. I hope, but don't expect, that these two important provisions will survive the upcoming conference with the House of Representatives. And while I continue to hope that the conference will come back with a better Medicare drug benefit, I regret that it is unlikely to be the case. The House bill is in many ways even worse than the Senate bill before us. Mr. President, I regret that none of the amendments that I supported during this debate prevailed. These amendments would have greatly improved this bill and provided a real prescription drug benefit to seniors--a benefit we could all have been proud of. Instead, this bill is an empty promise to seniors and the disabled on Medicare. This is not the kind of plan they have been asking for or have a right to expect. We could and should have done better. But at minimum, we could and should be able to hold our work here to the standard set in the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm. And we have failed. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Gregg and Schumer, of which I am a cosponsor. We are all aware of the incredibly high cost of health care these days and the often prohibitive cost of prescription drugs. We have all heard the sad but true stories of the senior citizens who are forced to choose whether to buy food or buy the medicine they need. We have heard the stories of seniors who only take half a pill instead of a whole one in order to make their prescriptions last longer. We hear these stories, and we all struggle to find a solution to these problems. I believe this amendment is an incredibly important step towards that solution. In 2001, Americans spent more than $130 billion on prescription drugs, and of this amount, only $11 billion of this was spent on generic drugs. What makes this statistic so important is that although only $11 billion out of $130 billion spent was on generic drugs, this $11 billion bought 45 percent of the total prescription drugs purchased in 2001. Generic drugs, as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, cost up to 80 percent less than those counterparts, and this amendment will help make sure that these drugs are made available to the consumer as soon as possible. This important amendment will close the loopholes that brand name companies have been using to make sure that their drug is the only one on the market, keeping their profits, and consumer costs, high. It will prevent brand name drugs companies from listing frivolous patents with the FDA in order to keep generics from being able to enter the market, and if they do, it will give generic companies recourse options. It will limit brand name companies to one automatic 30-month stay automatically keeping a generic alternative off of the market, instead of unlimited stays, which have kept generics off the market for years. These provisions, and others in this amendment, will save significant money to States, large corporations, small businesses, senior citizens, and so many others--money we could all use in this economy. For example, at the State level, Wisconsin spent over $14 million dollars in 2001 as a part of its Medicaid Program on 17 popular drugs whose patents will expire in the next 2 years. If generics for those drugs are allowed to enter the market, the taxpayers in my State will save about half of that money. That is no small change. At the same time, however, this amendment will not force pharmaceutical companies to stop researching and developing new and improved drugs, and looking for the cure for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and so many other ailments we are so close to curing. Both of these goals--bringing generics to the market as soon as possible, and continuing to support companies in their research and development efforts--are vital, and I believe this amendment strikes a solid balance between the two. I would like to commend Senators Schumer, McCain, Kennedy, and Gregg for their hard work on this effort, and I encourage all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I rise today in support of the confirmation of Hew Pate to the important post of Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. I am confident that Mr. Pate's talents and dedication will serve the Justice Department and the American people very well in this vital position. The responsibilities of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division have never been more important. In our challenging economic times, we all depend on the dynamism of competition to provide economic growth and jobs necessary to propel our economy forward. And I am convinced that only the aggressive enforcement of our Nation's antitrust laws-- our fundamental charter of economic liberty proven for over 110 years-- will ensure that competition will flourish and ensure that consumers will obtain the highest quality products and services at the lowest possible prices. The Antitrust Division must be a vigilant watchdog to ensure that the antitrust laws are properly enforced to prevent companies from stifling competition and harming consumers. Moreover, Mr. Pate will assume his post at a time when the Antitrust Division will have to serve as our last line of defense against excessive media consolidation. Now that the FCC has substantially relaxed media ownership restrictions, many expect a new wave of media mergers and acquisitions. These acquisitions will come before the Justice Department for review. We will expect that Mr. Pate will be careful to review these transactions to ensure that they do not unduly diminish competition in the marketplace of ideas nor unduly harm the diversity of news and information so essential to our democracy. It is essential, then, that the next head of the Antitrust Division be committed to the Justice Department's tradition of vigorous antitrust enforcement. The performance of the Antitrust Division over the last 2 years under Mr. Pate's predecessor's leadership gave me considerable cause for concern. From the defects in the Microsoft settlement--which many believe was unnecessarily weak and riddled with loopholes--to the general decline in the division's enforcement activities, we were left to wonder if the division was truly committed to its crucial mission of protecting competition. We will expect the next Antitrust Division Chief to return to the tradition of strong and energetic antitrust enforcement. I believe that Mr. Pate is well qualified to restore our confidence and lead the Antitrust Division in the years ahead. He has compiled an impressive record of achievement at a relatively young age as an attorney in private practice, and we have heard a great deal of praise for his talents and legal acumen. Since joining the Justice Department as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division more than 2 years ago, Mr. Pate has proven to be an effective enforcer of our Nation's antitrust laws. As a Deputy, he was responsible for many of the division's most important matters, including its successful challenge last year to the Echostar/DirectTV merger in the satellite television industry. And I have been particularly impressed with his dedication and hard work since he assumed the leadership of the Antitrust Division on an acting basis last fall. My favorable impression of Mr. Pate has been enhanced by my own dealings with the nominee. He demonstrated his knowledge and expertise in antitrust law at our confirmation hearing several weeks ago. And I was particularly pleased with his forthrightness and candor in our private meeting in advance of the hearing, where he impressed me with the sincerity and seriousness with which he would take his new responsibilities. I will therefore vote in favor of confirming Mr. Pate. I will look forward to working with Mr. Pate in the months and years ahead.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, ``PACT Act'' of 2003. This legislation addressed the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, and the connection between these activities and terrorist funding. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 10 cigarette smuggling cases were initiated in 1998. That has grown to approximately 160 in 2002. Cigarette smuggling can be defined as the movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold. Smugglers buy cigarettes in low-tax States such as North Carolina and Kentucky, and drive or ship the product to high-tax States and sell them on the street, to convenience stores, or to conspirators without paying the required State taxes. Some smugglers affix fraudulent State tax stamps to make it appear they have paid the State taxes that are due. The profits for cigarettes smuggling can be enormous. In North Carolina, a pack of cigarettes is taxed 5 cents. In New York, the State tax is $1.50 and in New York City, an additional $1.50 a pack city tax is levied. It is clear that cigarette trafficking is becoming a method of terrorist financing. In an investigation last month, the AFT arrested 17 individuals who are alleged to have smuggled more than $20 million worth of cigarettes. The ring allegedly purchased cigarettes in Virginia, where the state tax is 3 cents and resold them in California without paying the California tax, which is 87 cents. In another recent investigation, the AFT disrupted a cigarette smuggling scheme between North Carolina and Michigan participants allegedly smuggled at least $8 million worth of cigarettes and sent the proceeds to Hezbollah to support terrorist activities. The Internet is contributing to the smuggling problem because many Internet cigarette retailers are not paying the required taxes when shipments are sent to buyers in various States. It is impossible to know what happens to these ill-gotten gains. Currently, there are hundreds of tobacco retailers on the Internet claiming to sell tax-free cigarettes. Several openly proclaim on their websites that they do not report internet tobacco sales to any State's tax administrator. This is a flagrant violation of the law in every State. A recent Government Accounting Office report advised that States will lose approximately $1.5 billion in tax revenues by the year 2005 if the current state of Internet tobacco sales continues. More than ever, state governments need these tax dollars. Compounding the problem, counterfeit cigarettes, on which smugglers have paid no taxes, are becoming more and more common. In 2001, the U.S. Customs Service made 24 seizures of counterfeit cigarettes. In 2002, they made 255 seizures. Phillip Morris estimates that 100 billion counterfeit cigarettes are produced in China alone. The PACT Act will combat tobacco smuggling in a number of ways. First, in order to assist law enforcement and fight terrorism funding, this legislation will make violations of the Jenkins Act a felony thereby encouraging more investigations and prosecutions. The Jenkins Act, 18 U.S.C. 375, requires any person who sells and ships cigarettes across State lines to anyone other than a licensed distributor, to report the sale to the buyer's State tobacco tax administrator, thus allowing State and local governments to collect the taxes that are lawfully due. The current penalty for violating the Jenkins Act is a misdemeanor. In my State of Wisconsin, in 2001, State authorities referred a Jenkins Act violation to the U.S. Attorney who said that this was a matter that should be handled administratively. However, Wisconsin and most States do not have remedies for these violations and they have little recourse against vendors. This legislation also amends the Jenkins Act by explicitly expanding the definition of ``sales'' to include sales to a consumer via the mails, telephone, or the Internet. It will also require both sellers and shippers to submit the required reports, even when sales are to a licensed distributor. Finally, the ``PACT Act'' will empower State Attorneys General, and persons holding a Federal permit to manufacture or import cigarettes, to bring civil actions in Federal court to restrain violations of the Jenkins Act and to seek civil damages for the losses they have incurred. This will allow State Attorneys General to stop violators of this Federal law from operating as well as recoup their tax losses. The PACT Act also strengthens the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (``CCTA''), 18 U.S.C. 2342, which makes it unlawful for any person to ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase contraband cigarettes. Under the CCTA, contraband cigarettes is defined as 60,000 cigarettes or more which bear no tax stamp. This legislation will lower the threshold from 60,000 to 10,000 in order for smuggled cigarettes to be considered ``contraband,'' thereby allowing ATF to open more investigations and seek more Federal prosecutions of cigarette smugglers. Finally, the PACT Act will grant ATF the ability to utilize funds earned during undercover operations to offset expenses that are incurred during those investigations. This will make the ATF's powers more comparable to those of other investigative agencies such as that the FBI and DEA, may use non-appropriated funds to make undercover purchases and pay other investigative expenses. ATF needs this authority in part because of the huge costs associated with purchasing tens of thousands of cigarettes in undercover investigations. Cigarette smuggling is increasing and must be addressed. Enhancing the criminal laws to reduce cigarette smuggling will help deny terrorists a needed source of funding and help our States collect their revenue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senate voted today on a so-called ``jobs and growth'' package. I voted against this package, Mr. President, because I'm still looking for the part of the package that will result in jobs and economic growth. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to my colleagues, and the people of Wisconsin, what exactly it is that I have found in this package, and what it's lacking. As I look through the conference report before us, I have found proposals that fall far short of helping to boost our economy and creating jobs for the American people. The cost of this package, which is much higher than estimated due to the gimmick of sunsetting provisions, will only increase our already record-setting debt. As great an economic authority as Alan Greenspan has made it clear that growing debt and increasing interest rates will do nothing to create jobs or benefit the economy. In fact, just the opposite will result. In addition, this package includes provisions that will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, again to the detriment of the economy and the jobless. How do you create consumer demand by giving money to those least likely to spend it? How do you create jobs by rewarding those who are so rich they obviously have high paying jobs or don't even need them? Those are a few of the provisions that are included in this bill. What is not included? There is not enough money going to help the States out of their fiscal crises. My State of Wisconsin is facing a budget gap of nearly $300 million. How can I vote for a package that does so little to close that? While I support the meager amount that was included in the final bill, I am disappointed when I compare it to what we could and should have done. In addition, I strongly oppose the dividend tax provisions that, in States such as Wisconsin, which tie their definition of taxable income to the federal definition, will suck back over half of the state aid the bill includes. Our struggling States don't need that kind of legerdemain--sending a small, temporary cash infusion while enacting a long-term erosion in their tax base. In addition, I am equally disappointed that many of the provisions that would have actually helped middle and lower class families will sunset after 2004, providing little or no benefit to the families who need it the most. The bill drops a Senate provision to accelerate a component of the child tax credit that would have directly benefited working families across the country. The bill does not have real relief from the alternative minimum tax, a provision that will increasingly affect middle class families over the coming years. Finally, in the long list of examples of what this bill lacks, several of the loopholes that would have been closed under the Senate bill have been left out of the conference report, allowing companies to continue to use a myriad of tax shelters. As I review what is in this bill, and what isn't, I am confident that the majority of the people of Wisconsin will not benefit from what we have done here today. It is for their interests that I have to work, and I cannot in good conscience support a bill that will not benefit them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate passed up yet another opportunity to extend and expand unemployment benefits. Instead we passed a necessary, but inadequate, 13-week extension of eligibility for extended benefits. Unfortunately, this extension will not help the 1.1 million long-term unemployed workers in this country who have already exhausted 26 weeks of unemployment. Senator Kennedy's attempt to give these hard-working folks who have not been able to find a job for over 6 months additional benefits has been voted down once again by the other side of the aisle. The Congress has been talking for weeks and months about the importance of stimulating the economy and putting money into the hands of consumers. It is clear, however, that the Republicans are not interested in giving all consumers a little extra money but only those who have high paying jobs. What can be more stimulating to the economy than putting money in the hands of people who need it tomorrow, instead of waiting months or years for tax cuts to have an impact? Why can't the Congress give the same benefits to unemployed workers today that they have received in the past? Benefits that these workers have paid for by paying into the unemployment insurance fund? Not only have today's workers earned these additional benefits but they have paid for them as well. The unemployment trust fund can afford an extension of an additional 13 weeks of benefits for those who have exhausted the 26 currently provided, and Congress should do it again as we have in the past. I do not understand the priorities of those who are willing to let working families lose their benefits and go into debt while handing out tax cuts to people who do not need them. It is a shame to turn our backs on the people who helped fuel the strong economy in the 1990s. We owe them more for making this country successful and prosperous. We owe them a strong secure safety net when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Thirteen additional weeks of unemployment benefits is only a small tribute to the strength and perseverance of the American worker, and I am disappointed that this Congress has once again denied them the respect they deserve.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Feingold in introducing the Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003. This bill responds to an unfortunate abuse of the involuntary bankruptcy laws which occurred in my home state of Wisconsin last year. There, a tax protestor filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against 36 public officials. Even though none of the filings had any merit, the protestor succeeded in ruining the credit ratings of many of the public officials by filing what the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel described as ``an avalanche of legal documents against them.'' Some of the victims did not even know they were the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy case until they tried to use their lines of credit or obtain credit. Involuntary bankruptcy plays an important role in our system, but when it is abused by frivolous and fraudulent filings the victims deserve the right to clear their good names. Some background on involuntary bankruptcy is in order. Under current law, one or more creditors can file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against an individual or corporation. The credit problems were created because the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy case is a matter of public record pursuant to bankruptcy code section 107. In addition, credit reporting agencies include the filing on a person's credit report for up to ten years. The abuse of the involuntary bankruptcy laws is not common, but the Wisconsin case is not unique either. The National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks advises that after an initial review, they found that federal district judges in Ohio and Maine have been the subject of involuntary petitions, as well as a United States Attorney in Maine, and two IRS agents in Ohio. Finally, the bankruptcy clerk in the Central District of California reported that approximately 11 percent of involuntary petitions were bad faith filings over a 27 month period ending in March 2003. This bill addresses the problem in two primary ways. First, it amends the bankruptcy code to require that on the motion of the debtor that the bankruptcy courts expunge from the courts file all records relating to the filing of an involuntary petition under certain conditions. Those conditions are: (1) the petition is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, (2) the debtor is an individual; and (3) the petition is dismissed. Second, the bill amends the bankruptcy code to authorize a bankruptcy court to prohibit all credit reporting agencies from issuing a consumer report that contains any information relating to the involuntary bankruptcy petition or to the case commenced by such petition where the debtor is an individual and the court has dismissed the petition. So while this bill cannot prohibit someone from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions like the man in Wisconsin, it can make it significantly easier for the victim to contain the impact on his or her credit rating and to remove the unfortunate incident from the record. Mr. President, I understand that Chairman Sensenbrenner is moving the same bill on the House side. I look forward to working with him and my Senate cosponsors to get this important change to the bankruptcy code into law.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deepest disappointment in the actions of the Senate today. Today, across the country, States face a fiscal crisis as State legislatures attempt to close an estimated $17.5 billion budget gap. Today, more than 2 million American workers have been unemployed for more then 6 months. Today, families across the county are struggling to make ends meet. Today, our country is seeing steadily increasing deficits, now projected at over $300 billion this year alone. And today, in the Senate, we passed a hugely expensive tax package that will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. It is for that reason I voted against the Finance Committee's jobs and growth package. I have consistently argued that the best way to meet the needs of our Nation is to find a balance between cost and benefit, and the votes I have taken today are a reflection on this desire. I voted to double the amount of funding that would go to struggling State legislatures and local governments. I supported efforts to get more money into the hands of working families. I also supported amendments that would assist small businesses with the cost of health insurance and new equipment. These initiatives are the most effective, as well as the most cost effective, means of stimulating the economy. I would like to take a moment to applaud the pieces of the Finance Committee's package that were actually beneficial to working families. Marriage penalty relief and accelerating the increase in the child tax credit are both worthy proposals that would benefit millions of families. In addition, the small business expensing provision is an excellent way of helping small businesses with startup costs thereby providing a significant boost to the economy. However, we could, and should, have done more--more help for the struggling economy and struggling families at less damage to our bottom line. I was disappointed to see proposals fail today that would have expanded on all of these provisions; proposals that would have gotten more money into the hands of families who would spend it and could have provided a larger, faster boost to our failing economy. My greatest disappointment, however, was with an amendment that was able to pass. Since the administration announced its support for a complete elimination of the taxation on dividends, I have voiced my opposition to this proposal. Forty-two percent of the benefits under this proposal would go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. Those are inexcusable figures for a provision to be included under a so-called growth package. The dividend proposal will not spur the economy, will not help working families, and will not help States with their budget shortfalls. These are the goals we should be working towards, and I believe that we have fallen severely short in passing this legislation today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the career of a distinguished public servant, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice William Bablitch. Justice Bablitch has been a voice of fairness and reason on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for nearly two decades. Upon his retirement in July of this year, Wisconsin will lose a fine jurist, but the State and the institution will be stronger for his contributions and his service. Justice Bablitch has deep roots in Wisconsin. He was born and raised in Stevens Point and graduated from Pacelli High School. He cleaned golf clubs while working his way through college, studying first at University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point and ultimately earning his bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin--Madison. He spent 2 years in Liberia, West Africa in the Peace Corps, serving as an elementary school teacher. Upon his return he entered law school, and in 1968, he received his J.D. from the University of Wisconsin-- Madison. His close friends say his first love has always been the law. Justice Bablitch has spent his entire career in public service--first as the District Attorney in Portage County, later elected to the State Senate, and finally as a justice on the State Supreme Court. In Portage County, Justice Bablitch coordinated one of the first sensitive crimes units in the state and worked cooperatively with the Portage County Sheriff to help the University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point through the campus demonstrations that grew out of the Kent State protests and shootings. First elected in 1972, Justice Bablitch served as a State Senator for 11 years representing Adams, Waushara, Portage and Wood Counties. For 7 of his 11 years in the State Senate, he had the distinction of serving as Majority Leader. His legislative accomplishments are many and varied. He wrote the first campaign reform law restricting campaign spending and establishing public financing. He drafted watershed sexual assault legislation that prohibited the cross examination of a victim's past consensual sexual conduct--legislation which quickly became a national model. And he authored legislation which barred utilities from suspending or terminating service in the middle of winter. Justice Bablitch was elected to the Supreme Court in 1983 and was reelected in 1993. One of his most notable opinions came in a dissent where he upheld Wisconsin's hate crimes law. His dissent, however, became the majority position of the United States Supreme Court when that body upheld Wisconsin's law. He wrote opinions strengthening Wisconsin's ``lemon law.'' He also authored important opinions in civil rights and environmental cases. Justice Bablitch's tenure will be remembered for his ability to resolve complex issues of great importance to every resident of Wisconsin. On July 31 of this year, Justice Bablitch will step down from his position on the Court. With his long career in public service and his demonstrated devotion to the law, it is nearly certain that Justice Bablitch will not be closing the book on his career--only ending another distinguished chapter. Yet on this occasion, we would be remiss if we did not thank him for his outstanding contributions, for his dedication and for his even-handedness on the bench. Let me close by quoting Justice Bablitch himself: ``Law is the glue that holds our society together. Without law we have chaos.'' Wisconsin owes him a debt of gratitude for devoting his career to being the glue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedication and sacrifice of the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as public safety officers. Tonight, in a candlelight vigil, the names of 56 officers who lost their lives last year will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC. This is a somber time to remember the perilous duties that law enforcement officers take on each and every day to protect our communities. The Memorial is a fitting tribute to honor those we have lost in the line of duty. Sadly, Wisconsin owes three officers a special tribute for their service. I would like to honor them by placing their names in the Record along with the date of their untimely passing. Officer Robert Etter, Hobart-Lawrence, July 22, 2002; Officer Stephanie Markins, Hobart-Lawrence, July 22, 2002; Deputy Melvin Sharpless of Waushara County, December 16, 2002. I hope that these moments of recognition bring some solace to the officers' families and express our appreciation for their service. We are forever in their debt.