Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution before the Senate. There is no more serious vote we as Senators take than to authorize war. To do so, we must believe that there is great cause--a great threat to America. I cast my vote today with the great hope that this show of unity from the American Government and from the American people, along with the actions of the international community, will achieve our stated goal of disarming Iraq without war. I will vote for this authorization because, after great consideration, I believe Saddam Hussein's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a great threat. I believe disarming Saddam is a great cause. And I believe that moving to disarm Saddam--in concert with the international community--is the President's great goal. There is no doubt that the threat Saddam Hussein and his weapons pose to this country and to world peace is real. More than a decade has passed since we defeated Saddam, but he has not changed. He is the same repressive dictator, willing to overrun his neighbors, and to use weapons of mass destruction against his own people. We know that Saddam's regime has produced and is continuing to produce massive quantities of biological and chemical agents. We know much less about his current nuclear capabilities. But there can be no doubt that he is doing everything in his power to acquire nuclear weapons. While there is good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is not interested in jeopardizing his hold on power, we cannot predict what Saddam will do with these capabilities should he have them. The best we can do is to rely on the past as a guide to what the future may hold. And, the future is now colored by the events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks of last year. These have given us a disturbing glimpse at a possible worst case scenario. Given Saddam Hussein's track record--his ejection of weapons inspectors and his murderous ways--I believe the security of our nation depends on disarming Iraq and containing this regime notorious for its deceptions and ruthlessness. Let me be clear on that point. My vote today is a vote for disarmament, not a vote for regime change. While it is clear that Iraq is a rogue regime of the worst kind, going into overthrow it would be enormously destabilizing. There are many repressive governments around the world, some of which have access to weapons of mass destruction. There are many ruthless and aggressive nations around the world that have threatened their neighbors. Yet, we cannot be the world's policeman, offering to make the world safe by eliminating each and every tyrant. Should the President choose to use force against Iraq, it should be for the purpose of ensuring unfettered weapons inspections and full disarmament. If Saddam Hussein no longer rules as a result of our actions, then I say--find--but for us to take action with the primary purpose of overthrowing the Iraqi government would be wrong. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq. In order for the President to use force, the resolution requires the President to make a formal determination that relying on diplomatic and peaceful means will not adequately protect our national security, or lead to the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions. I am confident that this administration is doing everything in its power to engage the international community, and to work with our allies to contain Iraq. I am comforted to see the Administration working with the United Nations on a stronger resolution. The President has rightly challenged the U.N. to put some teeth in the Security Council resolutions which have been flouted by Iraq, and he has given the international community notice that there must be accountability for the U.N. resolutions to have any meaning. Mr. President, my vote today is a vote to support the President in his efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. My vote is not an endorsement of a policy of preemptive war, whether it is initiated by the United States or any other country. My vote today is to authorize the President to gather a world force against the threat of a dangerous regime armed with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons, and to disarm that regime. And finally, my vote today is to authorize the President to go to war, in the hope that this strong statement of our commitment to disarming Iraq will enable us to do so without war.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, and Senator Reed to introduce ``BLAST'', the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. Never before have the tremendous law enforcement benefits of ballistics testing been so apparent. We have the technology to ``fingerprint'' every new gun, and if we were using it today, we would be well on our way toward stopping the serial killer who even now is preying on the residents of suburban Washington. Every gun has a unique ``fingerprint'', the distinct patterns left on spent casings and bullets after it is fired. What we need to do is create a comprehensive library of the ballistic images of all new guns sold in the U.S. as they come off the assembly line and a library of the images of all guns used in crimes. With those libraries in place, new technology would allow us to compare those ``gun prints'' with bullets found at crime scenes, bullets like those found from the Washington area sniper's gun. By keeping a computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police can compare the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun until they find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit the crime. Police tell of solving multiple crimes simply by comparing bullets and shell casings found at the scene of a crime to a gun seized in a seemingly unrelated incident. Let me explain how ballistics testing works and how our measure is crucial to the fight against crime. The only evidence at the scene of a recent brutal homicide in Milwaukee was 9 millimeter cartridge casings, there were no other clues. But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of the firearm that had discharged those casings. Ballistics linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court. On September 9, 2000, several suspects were arrested in Boston for the illegal possession of three handguns. Each of the guns was test fired, and the ballistics information was compared to evidence found at other crime scenes. The police quickly found that the three guns were used in the commission of 15 felonies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This routine arrest for illegal possession of firearms provided police with new leads in the investigation of 15 unsolved crimes. Without the ballistics testing, these crimes would not have been linked and might have never been solved. Since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement agencies in more than 40 states have been operating independent ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI. Together, ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System, ``IBIS'', and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking. While success stories are increasingly frequent, the potential of ballistics testing is still untapped. One way that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is making ballistics testing more accessible to State and local law enforcement is through the installation of a new network of ballistics imaging machines. The final introduction of the machines across the country is almost complete and, once it is, the computers will be able to access each other and search for a greater number of images. The National Integrated Ballistics Information network, better know as ``NIBIN,'' will permit law enforcement in one locality access to information stored in other gun crime databases around the entire country. This will help law enforcement exponentially in their efforts to solve gun crimes. But ballistics testing is only as useful as the number of images in the database. Today, almost all jurisdictions are limited to images of bullets and cartridge casings that come from guns used in crimes. Our bill would dramatically expand the scope of that database by mandating that all guns manufactured or imported would be test fired before being placed into the stream of commerce. The images collected from the test firing would then be collected and accessible to law enforcement, and law enforcement only, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting gun crimes. As local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities search for the deranged murderer who has been terrorizing the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, they are using ballistics testing to determine whether the bullets and shell casings found at the scene of each crime are from the same gun. They can then identify the gun, giving them a better idea of what, and who, they are looking for in their manhunt. Had the gun used in these crimes been subject to a test fire before being placed in the stream of commerce, authorities would be able to identify the gun based on the bullets and casings. With that information, law enforcement could then trace the sale and transfer of the firearm in an effort to identify the owner of the gun and solve the crime. Today, police can find out more about a human being than they can about a gun used in a crime. Law enforcement can use DNA testing, take fingerprints and blood samples, search a person's health records, peruse bank records and credit card statements, obtain phone records and get a list of book purchases to link a suspect to a crime. Yet, the bullets found at the scene of a crime often cannot be traced back to the gun used because our ballistics images database is not comprehensive. We are unnecessarily limiting law enforcement's ability to track the criminals who have used guns in the commission of a crime. The BLAST bill will change all that. by making gun crimes easier to solve, all of us will be safer. The burden on manufacturers is minimal, we authorize funds to underwrite the cost of testing, and the assistance to law enforcement is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice- president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said in reference to ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want this.'' In their agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATF, emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a haystack.'' To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for the investigation of a gun crime. The BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps solve crime. BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation. I hope that the Senate will quickly move to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Department of Justice reauthorization bill. The reauthorization of the Department of Justice and all of its component parts is long overdue. In particular, this bill is important because it reauthorizes the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program, Title V, which is the cornerstone of our national juvenile crime prevention strategy. Senator Leahy deserves special mention for recognizing the importance of juvenile justice policy and waging a successful fight to reauthorize many important programs. Effective prevention programs are critical to any juvenile crime strategy, and title V is one of the programs that deserve our support. Let me tell you why. It relies on local communities, who know their needs better than the Federal Government, to identify solutions tailored to local problems. Communities qualify for funds only if they establish local boards to design long-term strategies for combating juvenile crime, and if they match Federal funds with a 50-percent local contribution. And, title V works. Participating communities, from 49 States, believe in this program so much that, according to the GAO, they've matched Federal money almost dollar-for-dollar, far more than the 50- percent match this program requires. In addition, studies confirm that many of these programs have reduced crime in cities across the Nation. A program that can motivate communities both to cooperate in improving safety and to collect the resources to do so is one that really works. I would also like to commend the conferees for including in the final bill important provisions from S. 1165, the Biden-Kohl-Reed-Landrieu- Daschle Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act. Senator Biden has always been a leader on juvenile crime control issues and it has been a pleasure to work with him. This bill understands the importance of federal assistance to our communities in the area of juvenile crime control and delinquency prevention programs. Finally, on a different issues, I am pleased that the bill makes several needed technical corrections to the Nation's antitrust laws. It will also eliminate unnecessary and unused antitrust review authority placed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and will therefore further our goal to consolidate antitrust oversight. Again, I applaud the Senate's consideration and passage of this important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 2002. The Senate is very familiar with the issue of the homestead exemption. We have voted to close the homestead loophole in each of the past three Congresses. Each and every time, the Senate strongly supported our proposal to close the homestead loophole and prohibit wealthy debtors from moving to Florida or Texas to shield their multi-million dollar mansions from their creditors. In practical terms, the unlimited homestead exemption means that a person can declare bankruptcy in Houston, for example, wipe out most of their debts, but shield from creditors a house worth an infinite amount. Our amendment will generously cap the homestead exemption at $125,000, that is, it permits a debtor to keep $125,000 of equity in his or her home after declaring bankruptcy. This provision should be law by now. Unfortunately, the politics of the bankruptcy bill generally and this provision specifically have prevented the homestead loophole from being closed once and for all. During the course of this debate, we accepted a compromise that was weaker than we would have wanted, but would get at the worst abusers. It was not all that we wanted, nor was it that is needed, but is was a good first step. To those that argue that the compromise that we agreed to is enough, we say it only got at some of the abusers who will use this provision in the law. Certainly, no matter how well we draft it, we will not be able to anticipate everything that some clever lawyer or devious debtor will think of to find a way around it. The only way to ensure that no debtor will be able to take advantage of this loophole is for the Congress to pass a hard cap. Only then can we be certain that the loophole would be closed once and for all. It appears now, however, that the bankruptcy reform bill has stalled and may not be considered before the Congress adjourns for the year. It would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the year to end without addressing the most scandalous abuse of the bankruptcy laws in an era when numerous corporate executives will surely use the homestead exemption to protect millions of dollars from their creditors. The country has been stunned recently by stories of corporate malfeasance, insider dealing, and fraud. And, not by fly-by-night companies, but rather the worst wrongdoing went on in companies that were entrusted with the nest eggs of millions of Americans in pension plans and mutant funds. Those investments have been lost. And, yet there is every chance that the people who caused these nightmares may walk away from their misdeeds and seek shelter in their luxury homes. Whether we are discussing Ken Lay's $7.1 million, 13,000 square foot condominium or Andrew Fastow's newly built multi-million dollar home in one of Houston's swankiest neighborhoods, or Scott Sullivan's $15 million estate in Boca Raton, one thing is clear; these former executives must not be permitted to continue to live like kings in bankruptcy while their former employees are looking for their next paycheck. Debtors should not be able to avoid their creditors through luck of geography or through strategic bankruptcy planning. The bottom line is that bankruptcy must be a refuge of last resort, not a financial planning tool for Ken Lay, Scott Sullivan or a host of others. It would be a shame if this Congress were not able to close the most egregious abuse of all in the bankruptcy laws. It is time to close the homestead exemption loophole once and for all. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is my honor today to celebrate the opening of the Richard I. Bong World War II Heritage Center in Superior, WI. The Richard I. Bong World War II Heritage Center honors World War II participants both on the home front and on the battle front. Named for America's Ace of Aces and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, MAJ Richard Bong, the new center tells visitors of all ages about World War II through the eyes of those who participated in the war effort. Major Bong, a native of Poplar, WI, fell in love with aviation as a small boy, watching mail planes fly over the family farm. In 1940, at the age of 20, he became a flying cadet in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Major Bong downed 40 enemy aircraft in the Pacific theater of war and made Poplar famous. Today would have been Major Bong's 82nd birthday. We celebrate by opening the Richard I. Bong World War II Heritage Center which not only honors Major Bong's war efforts but also pays tribute to all brave veterans who never saw themselves as heroes but truly embody the word.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 2002. The Senate is very familiar with the issue of the homestead exemption. We have voted to close the homestead loophole in each of the past three Congresses. Each and every time, the Senate strongly supported our proposal to close the homestead loophole and prohibit wealthy debtors from moving to Florida or Texas to shield their multi-million dollar mansions from their creditors. In practical terms, the unlimited homestead exemption means that a person can declare bankruptcy in Houston, for example, wipe out most of their debts, but shield from creditors a house worth an infinite amount. Our amendment will generously cap the homestead exemption at $125,000, that is, it permits a debtor to keep $125,000 of equity in his or her home after declaring bankruptcy. This provision should be law by now. Unfortunately, the politics of the bankruptcy bill generally and this provision specifically have prevented the homestead loophole from being closed once and for all. During the course of this debate, we accepted a compromise that was weaker than we would have wanted, but would get at the worst abusers. It was not all that we wanted, nor was it that is needed, but is was a good first step. To those that argue that the compromise that we agreed to is enough, we say it only got at some of the abusers who will use this provision in the law. Certainly, no matter how well we draft it, we will not be able to anticipate everything that some clever lawyer or devious debtor will think of to find a way around it. The only way to ensure that no debtor will be able to take advantage of this loophole is for the Congress to pass a hard cap. Only then can we be certain that the loophole would be closed once and for all. It appears now, however, that the bankruptcy reform bill has stalled and may not be considered before the Congress adjourns for the year. It would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the year to end without addressing the most scandalous abuse of the bankruptcy laws in an era when numerous corporate executives will surely use the homestead exemption to protect millions of dollars from their creditors. The country has been stunned recently by stories of corporate malfeasance, insider dealing, and fraud. And, not by fly-by-night companies, but rather the worst wrongdoing went on in companies that were entrusted with the nest eggs of millions of Americans in pension plans and mutant funds. Those investments have been lost. And, yet there is every chance that the people who caused these nightmares may walk away from their misdeeds and seek shelter in their luxury homes. Whether we are discussing Ken Lay's $7.1 million, 13,000 square foot condominium or Andrew Fastow's newly built multi-million dollar home in one of Houston's swankiest neighborhoods, or Scott Sullivan's $15 million estate in Boca Raton, one thing is clear; these former executives must not be permitted to continue to live like kings in bankruptcy while their former employees are looking for their next paycheck. Debtors should not be able to avoid their creditors through luck of geography or through strategic bankruptcy planning. The bottom line is that bankruptcy must be a refuge of last resort, not a financial planning tool for Ken Lay, Scott Sullivan or a host of others. It would be a shame if this Congress were not able to close the most egregious abuse of all in the bankruptcy laws. It is time to close the homestead exemption loophole once and for all. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today we remember the terrible events of September 11. A year has passed but for those who lost loved ones or sustained serious injuries in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon, the pain is still fresh and the loss is still palpable. Losing a loved one is always difficult but to experience loss as a result of a senseless act of terror can only compound the pain. For Americans in general, the sheer number of lives lost on September 11 was a national tragedy. Those of us who did not lose friends and family also experienced loss on September 11, albeit a loss of a different kind. On September 11, we lost our sense of personal safety. The idea that terrorism could strike Americans going about their business, working in their offices or taking a simple plane ride for business or pleasure, has changed us forever. Travel by air will never be the same post- September 11. And on a less tangible level, we are now cognizant that in a free society like ours terrorists cannot truly be contained. The threat of terrorism may subside but it will never disappear. On September 11, we lost our sense of trust. We have become more suspicious of those who want to enter our country. The Federal officials who protect our borders and control access to our country continue on heightened alert, on the lookout for aspiring terrorists. Our first responders, our local police and fire officers, have been tasked to survey our towns with a new eye and have entrusted all of us with the unsettling job of reporting suspicious activity in our neighborhoods. Most of all, on September 11, we lost our sense of national security. The attacks of September 11 brought with them the realization that our robust defenses, the biggest and best in the world, cannot protect us from terrorists. Our sophisticated planes, submarines, and missiles cannot deter a terrorist attack, and cannot protect us from the unconventional attacks we now know the al-Qaida terrorists were contemplating . Today, however, is not just a day to reflect on loss. Just as the stories of those who experienced personal loss on September 11 have evolved into stories of determination to carry on, our losses are tempered by resolve. We are resolved to uproot the terror cells which may now be lurking in as many as 60 countries, waiting for us to let down our guard so they can attack us at home or abroad. Working with our allies around the world we are determined to disrupt these cells by stopping their funding and prosecuting their members. We will also remain vigilant. To the best of our abilities, we will take all precautions to deny these terrorists the opportunity to strike again. We are resolved not to succumb to hate and to stereotyping of those who share ethnic or religious backgrounds with the terrorists. One of the biggest fears after September 11 was that there would be a backlash in this country against those of Middle Eastern descent or against adherents of Islam. While there were reports of hate crimes, many Americans reached out to their Muslim or Middle Eastern neighbors to reassure them--whether they were American citizens or just residents that they should not feel at risk. While the heinous acts of September 11 elicited many emotions, I was proud that most Americans recognized that taking our revenge against those who had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden would have sunk us to the level of the terrorists themselves. The threat of terrorism does have the potential to change the character of our nation. Just as we are vigilant about our physical security, we are resolved not to let terrorism curtail our freedoms. We must not allow the war on terror to infringe on the rights and liberties we hold dear. Terrorism will not go away, but it will have succeeded if we use it as an excuse to trample on the Constitution. The wonderful outpouring of patriotism which occurred this past year was not just an expression of national unity, it was a strong statement that we cannot and will not allow terrorism to undermine our democratic way of life. In the days after September 11, many Americans wondered how we would carry on. And yet we have carried on. We have danced at weddings, rejoiced in new babies, and it is the brave family members of those who perished on September 11 who have led the way: the mothers who gave birth without the presence of their husbands and the brides who walked down the aisle without their fathers. This has been a difficult year, a year of inconceivable loss, but a year which has been marked by resolve and a rededication to the ideals and principles upon which our Nation was founded.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support final passage of S. 812, the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act. I cosponsored this important legislation because I believe it will benefit every American by ensuring that more affordable generic drugs get to market on time and lower costs for consumers as promised. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will save American consumers $60 billion over the next 10 years. Prescription drug spending represents 9 percent of all health care costs, but drug spending grew 17 percent in 2001--and it's the fastest growing part of health care. Generic drugs can cost one-quarter of the price of their brand-name counterparts. In a time when health care costs are soaring in the double-digits annually, that is no small point. The pharmaceutical industry enjoys the highest profit margins of any sector in the American economy. Drug companies argue that high retail costs reflect the high cost of investment in research and development. I applaud the drug companies' efforts to find new lifesaving treatments and cures for patients and I do not argue with their right to make a healthy profit from their work. It is important to note that many of the gains in pharmaceutical research are made possible by the substantial, taxpayer-funded research investments of the National Institutes of Health and other Federal grants. All Americans should have access to the benefits of that research, and they should expect that once a drug company has recouped their costs, made a healthy profit, and the patents surrounding their drug expire, at that point consumers should benefit from generic competition that lowers drug prices. Unfortunately, in recent years, many drug companies have used loopholes in our patent laws to keep less expensive generic drugs off the market. This raises health care costs for patients, employers and States that are already struggling with rising health costs. There are three major loopholes that this bill closes. First, it would stop brand-name drug companies from filing endless, frivolous patents to keep a generic competitor off the market. These patents often border on the ridiculous, such as a patent on the color of the pill. But ridiculous as it may seem, each of these patents triggers a 30-month stay whereby the generic drug is kept off the market while the matter goes to court. And drug companies have every incentive to do this, after all, the cost of litigation is virtually nothing compared to the additional profits they can get by keeping their monopoly just a little longer. For example, the makers of the antidepressent Wellbutrin were able to make another $1.3 billion during the 31 months they were in litigation with the generic company. And the makers of Prilosec earned another $1 billion in just 7 months of delayed generic competition. This bill would also close another loophole by outlawing sweetheart deals where a brand company pays a generic company to stay out of the market. In the case of Cardizem, which treats high blood pressure, the brand-name company paid the generic company $90 million to stay out of the market. Because the generic had won the right to have 180 days of market exclusivity before other generic competitors could enter the market, this sweetheart deal allowed the brand company to earn another $450 million before other generics could compete. Finally, this bill puts some common sense back into the process by which brand companies list patents with the FDA in what is called the Orange Book. It enforces the law as it was originally intended by ensuring that only patents that claim the drug product or the approved method of use are listed in the Orange Book. It also gives generic companies the ability to challenge patents that may have been listed inappropriately just to keep generics off the market longer. I believe that this legislation preserves the original intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act to balance the competing interests of the rights of innovative drug companies and the rights of consumers to affordable medicines. It preserves the ability of drug companies to invest in research and development to find lifesaving cures and treatments, but it also makes prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans by getting generic drugs to the market on time. It also makes any Medicare prescription drug benefit we pass more affordable for seniors and taxpayers. This brings me to the real disappointment I have about the legislation we are about to pass today. I am extremely disappointed that the Senate was unable to also pass a real, comprehensive, affordable drug benefit within the Medicare Program. I am baffled by the unwillingness of many on the other side of the aisle to work together to help our Nation's seniors with skyrocketing drug costs. When Medicare was first created in 1965, prescription drugs were a very small part of our health care system. But today, prescription drugs are a critical part of that system, keeping people healthier and living longer. Unfortunately, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 38 percent of our Nation's elderly have absolutely no prescription drug coverage at all. Many seniors who do have some prescription drug coverage find their plan inadequate and face large out-of-pocket costs. Too many seniors forgo needed medicines or are forced to choose between buying the medicine they need and buying food or paying rent. Seniors and the disabled on Medicare need a comprehensive, universal, voluntary, affordable drug benefit, and that benefit should be part of the Medicare program that we've relied upon since 1965. While the Senate considered many different plans, I voted for the Graham-Miller approach because it was the only plan that met those important goals. And it was the only plan before the Senate that guaranteed that all Wisconsin senior citizens would have access to the medicines they need. By contrast, I voted against the so-called ``tripartisan'' plan because it relied solely on HMOs to provide prescription drugs to seniors. This simply won't work in Wisconsin. In our State, because of inadequate Medicare reimbursement, we've already seen Medicare HMO plans leave every year and offer fewer benefits than in other States. The tripartisan plan had the same Medicare reimbursement problems. There was no guarantee that plans would participate in Wisconsin at all, and those plans that did participate could cover fewer drugs or charge seniors more in Wisconsin than in other States. In fact, the HMOs themselves have said they are reluctant to offer such plans. And even if they do, there is no guaranteed drug benefit, from year to year, HMOs could change the premiums and copays seniors pay and which drugs will be covered. I do not believe we should hold Wisconsin seniors hostage to the business interests of HMOs. Seniors need a drug benefit that they can rely on every year to be affordable and one that ensures access to the medicines they need. The tripartisan plan did not meet that test. In addition, under the tripartisan plan, many seniors would still have high drug costs and low-income seniors would not be protected. The HMOs could charge whatever premiums they want; there would be a $250 deductible; seniors would still pay 50 percent of their drug bills; and there is a big gap where there is no coverage at all and the senior pays 100 percent of their drug bills. Seniors would have to pay $3,700 out of their own pockets before they even reach the catastrophic level. And low-income seniors may not qualify for any extra help at all because of a strict asset test that prevents them from being covered if they own a car worth more than $4,500, clothing and furniture worth more than $2,000, or even a burial fund worth $1500. This asset test would automatically eliminate 40 percent of Wisconsin's low-income seniors from being eligible for the extra help they need. Instead of the false promise of the tripartisan plan, I and 51 other Senators supported the Graham-Miller plan. This program provided a guaranteed benefit through the Medicare Program that would be available to all seniors, at the same price no matter where they live. It was voluntary, so seniors with drug coverage today could keep their plans. It had reasonable premiums and copays, no gaps in coverage, and low- income seniors would get extra help with no restrictive asset test. And it gave seniors choices. Seniors could choose an HMO plan if they wanted to, but the Graham-Miller bill offered them a drug benefit through the traditional Medicare program that seniors have relied on since 1965. Unfortunately, even though a majority of Senators supported the Graham-Miller bill, it failed to gain the 60 votes that are necessary for any plan to pass under Senate budget rules. At that point, the Senate was faced the possibility of doing nothing and continuing to leave seniors stranded with high drug costs. For me, this was not an option. Seniors have waited too long for Congress to act, and it would be inexcusable for Congress to leave them with nothing. That's why I supported a bipartisan compromise that represented a solid down payment on a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. First, it would help all low-income seniors below 200 percent of poverty, 45 percent of Wisconsin seniors, by providing comprehensive drug coverage through the Medicare program with nominal copays of $2 per generic prescription and $5 per brand-name prescription. Second, it would provide all seniors above 200 percent of poverty with discounts on prescription drugs of up to 30 percent. The Medicare program would utilize Pharmacy Benefit Managers, or PBMs, to negotiate these discounts the same system that is used today to manage benefits for nearly 200 Americans in the private sector. Third, the Graham-Smith compromise would protect seniors with very high drug costs of more than $3,300 in out-of-pocket costs, which represents nearly 17 percent of Wisconsin seniors. At that point, seniors would receive full Medicare coverage for their medicines with copays of only $10 per prescription. Let me be clear that I would much prefer a more comprehensive benefit and have voted for one. The original Graham-Miller plan would have been a comprehensive benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, and I believe that is the direction we need to go. But the Graham-Smith compromise plan would have taken a real first step toward the universal benefit we need. It would have been a down payment upon which Congress must build so that all seniors have the coverage they need. But again, even this compromise was blocked from passing. I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of this debate. We missed a tremendous opportunity to pass a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit. And then we were blocked from the opportunity to take even one real step toward that goal. I truly hope that this is not the end of our journey this year. Our senior citizens made our country what it is today, they paid their taxes and they played by the rules. They should not be forced to choose between paying the rent or buying groceries, or buying the life-saving medicines they need to be healthy in their retirement years. It's time to create a reliable, affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors. I hope the Senate will continue to work toward that goal this year.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the CLEAN-UP Meth Act of 2002. I am pleased to join my fellow cosponsors, Senators Feinstein and Hutchinson in introducing this legislation. Methamphetamine is a plague in Wisconsin that affects not only the people who purchase and use it, their families and friends, but also the law enforcement officials who are involved in cleaning up the abandoned meth laboratories. These home grown meth labs inflict significant damage to the environment unlike other illicit drugs. The labs contaminate the environment and threaten those who discover and break down the labs, are exposed to t4he precursor chemicals and clean up the polluted environment. The meth scourge is growing every day. In 1998, Wisconsin State authorities seized only two methamphetamine labs. By 2001, that number had increased to 52 and shows no signs of abating. Its appearance in the last few years in the western part of Wisconsin, trafficked from Minnesota and Iowa, has created a dramatic new problem for law enforcement. And, production in the State has grown dramatically in the last four years. The amount of methamphetamine produced in Wisconsin is also growing by leaps and bounds. In 1999, State drug task forces seized 1.6 kilograms of methamphetamine. In 2000, the number increased to 2.5 kilograms. Finally, in 2001, the amount of methamphetamine seized in Wisconsin skyrocketed to 20.9 kilograms, an increase of 13 fold in only two years. The existence of a significant and growing meth problem comes as no surprise to us. In fact, with the assistance of Wisconsin's Department of Narcotics Enforcement, we have attempted to fight the spread of meth for the past several years. We have augmented DEA's representation in Wisconsin, specifically adding new agents in the western part of the state to work in conjunction with state drug officials. We have secured DEA mobile drug teams to traverse the northwestern part of the State where much of the meth can be found. We have also secured millions of dollars in the appropriations process to aid in prevention and clean up efforts in western Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this has not stemmed the spread of meth. We fear to consider how much worse the problem would be if it were not for the efforts of our state and local law enforcement officials. We must do more. The legislation we introduced today is another weapon in the battle against the spread of meth. The bill authorizes more funding for the education, prevention and clean up of methamphetamine. Educating more people about the dangers of meth and assisting in safe environmental cleanup are important, long-term approaches to the meth problem. There is, however, something that can be done immediately to make it more difficult for meth producers to manufacture the drugs. We need to make it more difficult for meth producers to get access to the precursor chemicals they use to produce methamphetamine. That means closing a loophole in the law that currently makes it too easy for meth producers to get pseudophedrine. Pseudophedrine is the central ingredient in both methamphetamine and most major cold medicines sold over the counter. To combat the sale of pseudophedrine to meth producers, Congress passed the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This limited the amount of pseudophedrine or ephedrine that any one person could purchase at one time. Yet, Congress did not proscribe the purchase of pseudophedrine in so-called ``blister packs.'' The pharmaceutical industry argued that it is sufficiently difficult to remove each pill from a blister pack, that the sale of pseudophedrine in that form need not be limited. Only the sale of pseodphedrine in bottles where it would be easy for meth producers to access large quantities needed to be restricted. As it turns out, the meth producers adapted their behavior to take advantage of the loophole in the law by finding a way to make the blister packaged pseudophedrine economical to purchase. They did so with the advent of presses that simply punctured all of the blister packs--therefore removing the type of packaging as an impediment to their access to the pseudophedrine. The DEA conducted a study on the use of blister packs and found that among the refuse left at meth labs are more and more blister packs. This demonstrates, in the DEA's view, that the blister pack loophole needs to be closed. We agree with their recommendation and therefore recommend limiting the amount of pseudophedrine that can be purchased by any one person at any one time. Closing this loophole in the law governing the manufacture of meth is one more weapon in the battle against the drug. Combined with education, prevention and greater resources for law enforcement throughout Wisconsin, we can stem the tide of this scourge before it does even more damage.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the CLEAN-UP Meth Act of 2002. I am pleased to join my fellow cosponsors, Senators Feinstein and Hutchinson in introducing this legislation. Methamphetamine is a plague in Wisconsin that affects not only the people who purchase and use it, their families and friends, but also the law enforcement officials who are involved in cleaning up the abandoned meth laboratories. These home grown meth labs inflict significant damage to the environment unlike other illicit drugs. The labs contaminate the environment and threaten those who discover and break down the labs, are exposed to t4he precursor chemicals and clean up the polluted environment. The meth scourge is growing every day. In 1998, Wisconsin State authorities seized only two methamphetamine labs. By 2001, that number had increased to 52 and shows no signs of abating. Its appearance in the last few years in the western part of Wisconsin, trafficked from Minnesota and Iowa, has created a dramatic new problem for law enforcement. And, production in the State has grown dramatically in the last four years. The amount of methamphetamine produced in Wisconsin is also growing by leaps and bounds. In 1999, State drug task forces seized 1.6 kilograms of methamphetamine. In 2000, the number increased to 2.5 kilograms. Finally, in 2001, the amount of methamphetamine seized in Wisconsin skyrocketed to 20.9 kilograms, an increase of 13 fold in only two years. The existence of a significant and growing meth problem comes as no surprise to us. In fact, with the assistance of Wisconsin's Department of Narcotics Enforcement, we have attempted to fight the spread of meth for the past several years. We have augmented DEA's representation in Wisconsin, specifically adding new agents in the western part of the state to work in conjunction with state drug officials. We have secured DEA mobile drug teams to traverse the northwestern part of the State where much of the meth can be found. We have also secured millions of dollars in the appropriations process to aid in prevention and clean up efforts in western Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this has not stemmed the spread of meth. We fear to consider how much worse the problem would be if it were not for the efforts of our state and local law enforcement officials. We must do more. The legislation we introduced today is another weapon in the battle against the spread of meth. The bill authorizes more funding for the education, prevention and clean up of methamphetamine. Educating more people about the dangers of meth and assisting in safe environmental cleanup are important, long-term approaches to the meth problem. There is, however, something that can be done immediately to make it more difficult for meth producers to manufacture the drugs. We need to make it more difficult for meth producers to get access to the precursor chemicals they use to produce methamphetamine. That means closing a loophole in the law that currently makes it too easy for meth producers to get pseudophedrine. Pseudophedrine is the central ingredient in both methamphetamine and most major cold medicines sold over the counter. To combat the sale of pseudophedrine to meth producers, Congress passed the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This limited the amount of pseudophedrine or ephedrine that any one person could purchase at one time. Yet, Congress did not proscribe the purchase of pseudophedrine in so-called ``blister packs.'' The pharmaceutical industry argued that it is sufficiently difficult to remove each pill from a blister pack, that the sale of pseudophedrine in that form need not be limited. Only the sale of pseodphedrine in bottles where it would be easy for meth producers to access large quantities needed to be restricted. As it turns out, the meth producers adapted their behavior to take advantage of the loophole in the law by finding a way to make the blister packaged pseudophedrine economical to purchase. They did so with the advent of presses that simply punctured all of the blister packs--therefore removing the type of packaging as an impediment to their access to the pseudophedrine. The DEA conducted a study on the use of blister packs and found that among the refuse left at meth labs are more and more blister packs. This demonstrates, in the DEA's view, that the blister pack loophole needs to be closed. We agree with their recommendation and therefore recommend limiting the amount of pseudophedrine that can be purchased by any one person at any one time. Closing this loophole in the law governing the manufacture of meth is one more weapon in the battle against the drug. Combined with education, prevention and greater resources for law enforcement throughout Wisconsin, we can stem the tide of this scourge before it does even more damage.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as a businessman, I have been deeply concerned about the reports of fraudulent and even criminal behavior at prominent American corporations. When I worked in business on a daily basis, this is not the kind of behavior I saw or expected from my peers. It is imperative that we respond to the corporate malfeasance which has been roiling our markets. The impact of these acts, all for the sake of boosting short-term profits, has been broad, costing many their jobs and others their savings. The free market is the underpinning of our economic system, the key to the growth and development of our Nation in the last two centuries. The many creative and dynamic businesses which make up our democratic capitalism make important contributions in the form of good paying jobs and the taxes which pay for critical services, such as our national defense. Above all, these businesses are good citizens in their communities. As a result, businessmen are important and highly valued people in our society. The vast majority of businessmen act in good faith and with integrity. It is the bad apples who give the rest a bad name. Our system has been abused. Unfortunately, those who have raped the system have reaped financial gain, while the rest have lost jobs, savings and pensions. They and their boards violated the public trust. Those who are lucky enough to be in positions of leadership have an enormous responsibility to enhance and not damage our economy. Unfortunately, the current system of regulation has not been sufficient to prevent bad actors from abusing their positions. That is why we are taking action today. We must build more accountability into our economy because the bad actors--even if they are not in great numbers--have impacted our whole economy. The stock market is no longer the playground of the rich: We are now in an era when as many as 50 percent of the American people have some of their assets in the stock market, meaning enormous repercussions if companies are misrepresenting their financial positions. I agree with the President that ethical behavior and corporate responsibility are essential if we are to restore the confidence of the American people in our free markets. However, the colossal corporate wrongdoing we have seen uncovered--in 2001 alone, 270 public companies had to restate the numbers in their financial statements--requires that we step up to the plate and address some of the structural problems which have allowed these frauds to occur. That is why I support S. 2673, the Public Accounting and Corporate Reform Investor Protection Act of 2002. There are those who have said this legislation is too strong. I disagree. This legislation will not have a negative impact on people doing their jobs as they should. We have an obligation to protect investors, employees, citizens. We are saying to CEOs, their fellow executives, and their boards: We expect you to do your jobs correctly, with integrity, and if you don't, you will be held accountable. It is not enough to challenge corporate America to do better. We must make clear that there is a cost to engaging in accounting and securities fraud. That is why I supported the Leahy amendment, a version of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act. This amendment strengthens existing criminal penalties for corporate crime, creates a securities fraud felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and creates a new crime for schemes to defraud shareholders. The amendment also would establish a new felony antishredding provision and would protect corporate whistleblowers. The strength of the Sarbanes bill is not in the penalties alone. The bill addresses conflicts of interest which have permitted these crimes to occur and is a balanced approach which will help prevent corporate fraud from occurring in the first place. The bill sets up a strong, independent, and full-time oversight board with broad authorities to regulate auditors of public companies, set auditing standards, and investigate violations of accounting practices. The Public Accounting Oversight Board proposed in the bill is a better alternative to the part-time board currently being pushed by the SEC. That board would leave standard setting to the accounting profession and would most likely perpetuate the status quo. It is the lack of clear standards coming from the current system of self-regulation which has been the root of many of the frauds being revealed today. The Sarbanes bill also restricts the nonaudit services a public accounting firm may provide to its clients that are public companies. These consulting services are clear conflicts of interest for independent auditors. We cannot rely on auditors to serve as the watchdogs of publicly traded companies if they are deeply invested in these same companies. If we cannot rely on the auditors, than how are we to rely on the markets? Finally, the Sarbanes bill addresses the problem of stock analyst conflicts of interest. The Merrill Lynch case recently settled in New York is an egregious example of stock analysts pushing stocks that they actually thought had little value. Most often the motive for pushing stocks of questionable value is to boost their own investment banking departments which are underwriting these stocks. The bill before us today addresses this problem and requires the SEC to adopt rules designed to protect the independence and integrity of securities analysts. I have no illusions that one bill will be the panacea for all that currently ails corporate America. For example, I believe there is more we should do, beyond the corporate disclosures in this bill, to address problems with corporate boards. We have a responsibility, however, to restore confidence in our markets and in the solid businesses which make up these markets so that our economy can thrive. Only decisive action can prevent this fraud on the American people from happening again.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the long struggle to find a permanent repository for nuclear waste came one step closer to completion. The Senate has decided to over rule Nevada's objection to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain with a strong majority. This is a victory I supported, but not one I can be happy about because it forced me to vote against my leadership. I supported moving the waste to Yucca Mountain for three main reasons. First, the opening of Yucca Mountain means that Wisconsin will have one less site storing nuclear waste as the Dairyland Power Cooperative's decommissioned reactor will finally be able to get rid of the waste stored at its defunct reactor. Second the site has been proven safe after 20 years of study by the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. Third, the electricity rate payers of Wisconsin have paid more than $250 million over the years for this site, and the Federal Government should fulfill its side of the bargain by providing the repository it promised. I still have concerns regarding transportation of the waste through our population centers. This is a high stakes situation and every effort needs to be made to choose the best routes, prepare the local emergency response units, and continue to improve the casks in which the waste will be moved. However, the industry's record of thousands of shipments of nuclear waste around the country and around the world without an accidental release of radiation leads me to believe that these concerns will be adequately addressed. I understand the concerns some of my colleagues have on the safety of the Yucca Mountain site. What we are asking science to do by proving that this site will be safe for tens of thousands of years is unheard of, and may well be beyond our current capabilities. But this site, on the Nevada Nuclear Test site, is certainly safer than leaving this waste at 132 sites nationwide. Sites scattered around the country that were never designed to be a permanent solution. This mountain has been carefully studied and will continue to be closely monitored. We will not walk away from Yucca Mountain but will watch it closely for generations to come. Burying our waste problems for future generations to deal with is not something we should be proud of. I hope the Congress and the administration will continue to fund nuclear research that will investigate ways to neutralize this waste. The repository at Yucca Mountain doesn't have to be the last word on nuclear waste, and I hope we can do better in the future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise here today to congratulate Milwaukee native Larry Lederman, who National Racquetball Magazine calls the ``founding father of modern racquetball'' and who recently celebrated his 88th birthday last month. Larry is a prominent figure not only in Wisconsin sports history, but in American sports history. In 1939 he was the best wrestler in America in his weight class and arguably the best wrestler in the world. Larry was named to six Hall or Wall of Fames, including the Wisconsin AAU Hall of Fame in 1995, and most recently was elected to the International Wrestling Hall of Fame in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Five years ago, the AAU selected Larry to give back the medals to the world's greatest athlete, Jim Thorpe, taken from him in 1918, at a special ceremony in Wisconsin. For 88 years Larry Lederman has provided us with many great memories and touched many lives, and it is my honor here today to celebrate his many achievements.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Conrad estate tax reform amendment and oppose the Gramm-Kyl estate tax repeal amendment. I want to compliment equally both sides in this debate, however. They have brought before the Senate a clear question about the direction of U.S. tax policy--a question that the Senate should address. Should the very richest families in this country be able to pass their entire fortunes onto the next generation tax free? In a time of re-emerging budget deficits, urgent homeland defense needs, and a slowly recovering economy, is a tax break exclusively for the very richest among us a good idea? That is what this debate is about. Unfortunately, we have heard more about other issues then that very basic question of how we tax the rich and the not so rich in this country. We have heard that the votes today are about repealing a tax on those who inherit that causes the break-up of family businesses or farms. It is not. The Conrad amendment raises the amount of an estate exempt from tax to $3.5 million, $7 million for a couple, by 2009. In Wisconsin, that will completely exempt all but 0.2 percent of estates from any taxes at all. So we are not arguing over estate taxes on the local dairy farm or the small business operating on Main Street. We all agree they should be totally exempt, and under all proposals we consider today, they are. No, the question today is should we go further than exempting small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and most all farms--certainly all Wisconsin farms--from the estate tax? Should we enact a tax break for very richest families in this country--less than 1 percent of all estates in this country? Or should we save the hundreds of billions of dollars that that tax break will cost--and use it to defend our country better, pass tax breaks that help the middle class working family, or simply pay down our huge debt? I can think of many uses for billions of dollars better than passing a tax break that will benefit those that inherit $15 million but do nothing for those who inherit $15,000, $150,000, or even $1 milllion. The choice is clear. It is time to reform the estate tax and exempt 99 percent of all families from any worry of taxes after death. It is not time--and I am not sure it ever will be--to give a multi-billion dollar break to a very small number of very rich families.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for his passionate statements on this subject. I agree that the Secretary of Agriculture has the responsibility to use here authority to help those in need when the opportunity arises, as it clearly has in this case, and support the comments of the Senator from Minnesota. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator raising this issue. It is my understanding that the United States has more than one billion pounds of surplus non-fat dry milk in storage that has been acquired at an average cost of over 90 cents per pound, for a total cost approaching $1 billion, and storage costs of $1.5 million per month and growing. This surplus milk deteriorates rapidly, going out of condition in about three years, when it must be sold for a cost of only a few cents per pound.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I understand and am aware of the concerns expressed by my colleagues from the State of Indiana, and want to assure them that Indiana is among the states for which NRCS has identified need and for which assistance is provided through this appropriation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to commend Chairman Harkin and all of the farm bill conferees on their work related to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Senate passed its version of this legislation on February 13, 2002 and I am pleased that the conferees were able to finish their work so we can send this legislation to the President for his signature and quick enactment. I am confident that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will work expeditiously to implement the new programs created in this legislation in time for the 2002 crop year. Rural America needs the assistance provided through this ``rural'' economic stimulus bill, and I am pleased that today we will respond to their needs. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes the creation of a new, national dairy program that supports all dairy farmers regardless of location and regardless of the end use of their milk. I am also pleased with the increased investment in nutrition funding for programs like food stamps, the WIC and Seniors Farmers Market program. Finally, I am supportive of the enhanced commitment to conservation spending on programs like the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and the new Conservation Security Program. Of particular interest to my State of Wisconsin is the creation of a new, national dairy program that will, for the first time, create a more meaningful and credible safety net for all of our Nation's dairy farmers. This new program, while not perfect for any one region, moves us beyond the regional and divisive debate over dairy compacts. I am pleased that gone are the days of regional trade barriers and milk price fixing cartels that artificially support the price of milk in one region at the expense of farmers in others. In addition to extending the very important dairy price support program at $9.90 per hundredweight, this farm bill creates a new counter-cyclical program that will provide assistance to farmers when the price of milk falls below $16.94 per hundredweight. A payment rate will be calculated by taking 45 percent of the difference between $16.94 and the class I, fluid, price in Boston. That payment rate will be made on the first 2.4 million pounds of a producer's production, or approximately 133 cows. The payment rate per hundredweight will be the same for all dairy farmers regardless of location and regardless of what their milk is used for. We in the Upper Midwest have argued over the years that all dairy farmers should be treated the same regardless of the end use of their milk and I am pleased that this conference report supports that position. In addition to increased support for our dairy farmers, the Farm Bill Conference Report also provides nearly $6.4 billion in funding for nutrition programs. These nutrition programs include food stamps, the WIC and Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Programs and the emergency food assistance program. This legislation also provides food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. The nutrition title of the bill is very important to our producers who provide the commodities for the programs, as well as low-income and less fortunate individuals who need help in getting access to a more nutritious and well-balanced diet. Beyond the much needed increase in nutrition funding, the Farm Bill Conference Report also provides a much needed increase in conservation spending. The Farm Bill Conference Report reflects a total increase of 80 percent for conservation programs. Specifically, this legislation provides a new 20-fold increase for the Farmland Protection Program, a 10-fold increase for the Wildlife Incentives Program and phases up to achieve a $1.1 billion annual funding level for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP. I am also pleased that there is an additional enrollment of 1.2 million acres for the Wetlands Reserve Program which works extremely well in Wisconsin. Despite the many positive provisions in this farm bill, I am disappointed that the House Conferees refused to adopt two very important Senate provisions. I am disappointed that the House Conferees refused to adopt the Senate language regarding the ban on packer ownership of livestock, which the majority of the Senate supported in two separate votes. I am also disappointed that the House Conferees did not accept a meaningful limitation on farm payments. First, this conference report does not include the so-called ``Johnson Amendment,'' which would ban packer ownership of livestock. On December 11, 2001, with my support, the Senate adopted this amendment in order to provide ranchers who raise livestock with more marketing opportunities and hopefully a higher price for their product. However, the House Conferees, under pressure from the meat industry including large packers, refused to accept this provision. Without a ban of packer ownership of livestock, independent producers will continue to be shut out of markets, face lower prices and less competition while packers continue to give preference to their own supplies of livestock. I support Senator Johnson's call for hearings on this important issue in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and to investigate abusive market practices in the livestock sector. Second, I am disappointed that the conference report does not include a meaningful limit on the level of farm subsidies going to large farmers located predominantly in the south. This conference report, while reducing the overall payment limit to $180,000 annually is meaningless as the ``triple-entity'' rule remains in place. The final bill retains loopholes that not only permit a recipient to double the $180,000 level to $360,000 through the ``triple-entity'' rule but also makes it effectively limitless for the purpose of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. The conference report also allows for the continued use of the generic certificate program. This program allows the largest of producers to enjoy the benefits of the marketing loan program without repayment while allowing the producer to hold onto their commodity for future sale on the open market. The loopholes that remain make the payment limitation provisions in the conference report meaningless and I am disappointed that the conferees could not agree on a way to prevent large payments from going to those producers who need the assistance the least. I realize this bill is not perfect. There are provisions and changes that I wish could have been included in the final conference report. But this bill restores a much needed economic safety-net to an industry that experiences wide fluctuations in prices. The combination of a new counter-cyclical dairy program, increased nutrition spending and an increase in funding for conservation programs makes this new farm bill one that I can support and one that I think will help our farmers and ranchers across the country. We have a commitment to rural America to ensure farming remains a viable industry in our Nation and I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this very important legislation.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Harkin for all of his hard work in putting together this Farm Bill. One of the most important parts of this legislation deals with nutrition, and ensuring that all Americans have access to a healthy meal. I am especially pleased to see an additional $5 million in funding provided for the Seniors' Farmers Market Nutrition Program for fiscal year 2002. In the 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill, we provided $10 million for this important program, and encouraged the Secretary to use additional funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation if necessary. However, although there is a clear need for these additional funds, and the Secretary has been reminded of this language on several occasions, these additional funds have not been released. The result of this is that 9 States and territories, including my state of Wisconsin, received funding for this program last year and applied this year to continue their programs, but were turned away. I intend to include report language in the homeland security supplemental bill I am currently working on in the Appropriations Committee directing the Secretary to use any additional funds that become available to provide funding for these states. I appreciate my friend's efforts to include this additional money in the farm bill, and am hopeful that it will provide at least partial relief to the drastic funding cuts being felt by these States.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today is a proud day for the state of Wisconsin. For 10 years we have worked to establish the Green Bay judgeship that makes this day possible. And for far longer, Judge Griesbach has developed the ability, gained the experience and cultivated the temperament necessary to be the first Federal judge to sit in Green Bay. We are confident that Judge Griesbach is the right man for the job. He possesses all the best-qualities that we look for in a judge: intelligence, diligence, humility, and integrity. The Green Bay community has waited a long time for a Federal judge. When Judge Griesbach is sworn in we think they will find it was well worth the wait. The lawyers who practice in front of Judge Griesbach agree. In a 1998 survey by the Green Bay News Chronicle, Brown County attorneys ranked Judge Griesbach as the best judge in the area. In fact, he was rated first in every category polled, including: temperament; fairness; legal scholarship; work habits; and decisiveness. That is quite a testament to his ability. So, it came as no surprise that the bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission concluded that Judge Griesbach would make a fine Federal judge. For the past 23 years, Wisconsin has used a nominating commission to select candidates for the Federal bench. Through a great deal of cooperation and careful consideration, and by keeping politics to a minimum, we always find qualified candidates. Judge Griesbach's selection demonstrates that our process has succeeded once again. The Commission's reasons for his recommendation became apparent when I met him for our interview. He was candid, humble, and thoughtful. He has impressed everyone. He also made a fine impression during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Judge Griesbach will inaugurate a tradition of fair and well- respected jurists in northeastern Wisconsin. I support Judge Griesbach's nomination and commend our colleagues for supporting this fine judge.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, the bankruptcy conference will meet on Tuesday to discuss and attempt to resolve the remaining differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. One of those issues is the Senate provision that addresses the single most offensive abuse in the bankruptcy system, the homestead exemption. As we all know, the homestead exemption allows debtors in five privileged States to declare bankruptcy but still shield unlimited millions of dollars in their homes from their creditors. With every year that passes, we learn of new cases where scoundrels have declared bankruptcy in States like Florida and Texas but have continued to live like kings in multi-million dollar mansions. Just 2 weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story on former Enron executives like Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow who are doing some bankruptcy planning of their own. They are selling numerous properties around the country worth millions of dollars, but retaining--or in some cases even building--luxury homes in Texas or Florida. Using the homestead exemption, Lay will be able to retain his $7.1 million condominium in the finest apartment building in Houston and Fastow will keep his multi-million dollar mansion currently under construction. They will be able to enjoy their mansions, even if they declare bankruptcy, as their former employees struggle to find a new paycheck or to cover the rent. Last year, it was Paul Bilzerian--a convicted felon--who tried to wipe out $140 million in debts and all the while held on to his 37,000 square foot Florida mansion worth over $5 million--with its 10 bedrooms, two libraries, double gourmet kitchen, racquetball court, indoor basketball court, movie theater, full weight and exercise rooms, and swimming pool. The Bankruptcy Conference has a real chance to put an end to this now. The Senate has repeatedly--year after year--voted overwhelmingly in favor of a provision that would put a hard cap on the amount of home equity that a debtor can retain even after bankruptcy. The Senate should insist on a real and meaningful solution to this problem. But so far, the only compromises we have been offered are road maps that show debtors how to circumvent the law. We have been told that we can only impose a residency requirement of two and a half years This will not do. First, it does nothing to stop lifelong residents of Texas or Florida. Ken Lay has lived there most of his life. So has Andrew Fastow. They get away scot free under this proposal. Second, most bankruptcy attorneys will tell you that anyone rich enough can plan 2 to 3 years in advance. In the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to raise the homestead cap to $175,000--a figure that far exceeds the average amount of equity a Houston homeowner has in their house. So, the average homeowner will not be affected at all by this provision, only the extraordinarily wealthy debtor. And even now, we remain open to effective and practical proposals aimed at solving this inequity. Yet, we may not have an opportunity to reach that compromise. Instead, those that want the bill so badly that they are willing to legislate unfairness into the bankruptcy code are trying to get their way. We should remember that one of the central principles of the bankruptcy bill is that people who can pay part of their debts should be required to do so. But the call to reform rings hollow when the proposal creates an elaborate, taxpayer-funded system to squeeze an extra $100 a month out of middle-class debtors but allows people like Burt Reynolds to declare bankruptcy, wipe out $8 million in debt, and still hold on to a $2.5 million Florida mansion. To put it another way, political expediency may well trump fairness. The rich will be able to pour millions of dollars into the value of their Florida home, their Texas ranch, or their unimproved plot of land secure in the knowledge that their creditors will never be able to touch it. Yet, the average debtor will lose their house and most of their personal possessions as they try to repay their debts. We have made historic changes to the bankruptcy code, but have chosen not to remedy the worst abuse of them all. We can only hope that between now and the conference committee's meeting on Tuesday, the parties to this deal will have a change of heart.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Yes.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I am proud to rise today to honor the Daily Cardinal, one of the student newspapers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, on this the occasion of its 110th anniversary. For 110 years, Cardinal reporters, photographers, and editors have educated and entertained their peers. As one of the nation's oldest student-run papers, it is truly a treasure of the State and its university. Since the newspaper's establishment in 1892 by a University of Wisconsin-Madison student, thousands of young journalists have covered some of the most important issues and events facing the university, the community, and the country. Cardinal contributors have simultaneously developed strong journalistic skills and informed their community by covering such important events as the United States' declaration of war in 1941 to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and most recently, the events and aftermath of September 11. Furthermore, the staffs of the Cardinal have served their journalistic role as public watchdog throughout its history, and have undoubtably made their university, community, and State better for it. As an alumni of the University of Wisconsin, it is my great honor to congratulate the Daily Cardinal for 110 years of dedicated and quality student journalism, and I wish them all the best as they extend this tradition.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically commend the good work of the Girl Scouts of the USA, on this week of their 90th Anniversary. For nine decades, this organization has been instrumental in the nurturing and development of millions of American youth in all communities, reaching beyond racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic barriers. Today, Girl Scouting has a membership of 3.8 million, making it the largest organization for girls in the world. In my home State of Wisconsin, there are 77,000 girls, one in five, who currently participate in Scouts. One cannot quantify the positive impact the Girl Scouts have had on this country and our youth. Countless girls have emerged from this wonderful organization with the qualities and values we hope our children will embody. Countless girls have left Scouts strong and confident; thoughtful and creative; dedicated and involved; responsible and trustworthy. Countless girls have used their experiences in Scouts to develop a deep sense of justice, honor and integrity. Countless girls have matured into role models, leaders and public servants in their communities. I have had the pleasure of talking with numerous Girl Scouts and Girl Scouts alumni who have described the positive role Scouts has played in their lives. There are so many more stories that have, and can, be told about the extraordinary impact this organization has had. I believe the best example of what the Girl Scouts represent is the Girl Scout Gold Award Young Women of Distinction. Each year, 10 young women receive this achievement, the organization's highest, for their exemplary sense of community service. I am proud to recognize one of those women: Elsa, a 17-year-old, who hails from Shorewood, WI. Elsa established the Avenue Store, a clothing ministry for low-income individuals in the Milwaukee area. As chairman of the board of the store, Elsa worked with a board of adults, established guidelines for the store, and designed and implemented a voucher system for obtaining clothes. She also worked with more than 60 schools and agencies in her community and trained over 50 volunteers. In the project's first year, the Avenue Store served over 500 people from several homeless shelters. Elsa is a fine citizen, who embodies the profound impact Girl Scouts have on their community and society. Today, Girl Scouts of the USA continues to flourish, helping millions of girls grow strong. Girl Scouts continues to empower girls to develop their full potential; to relate positively to their peers; and to develop values that provide the foundation for good decision-making. It is my great honor to congratulate the Girl Scouts for 90 years of strengthening America's youth, and I wish them all the best as they extend this tradition for 90 years and beyond.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Sheriff Stephen Fitzgerald to be United States Marshal for the Western District of Wisconsin. Sheriff Fitzgerald's qualifications for this position are impressive. He has served as the Sheriff of Dodge County since 1989 and as a detective and patrol officer with the Chicago Police Department before seeing the light and moving to the greener pastures of Wisconsin to continue his lifelong devotion to law enforcement and public service. Sheriff Fitzgerald received a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee yesterday and deserves the support of the full Senate today. We look forward to his service to the Western District of Wisconsin.