Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor the University of Wisconsin's men's basketball team. On Wednesday, the Badgers beat Michigan, 74-54, in Madison to finish 11-5 and clinch at least a share of the Big Ten Conference Championship and a No. 1 seed in next week's Conference Tournament. The players and coaches on the University of Wisconsin men's basketball team provide an example of commitment, skill and sportsmanship as they bring the school its first Big Ten Conference title in men's basketball since 1947. Not too many people gave this young team a chance to succeed before the season began. Based on the preseason consensus, this was to be a rebuilding year and the Badgers would finish near or at the bottom of the league standings. However, in the spirit of the Wisconsin faithful who have supported the men's basketball program both in times of glory and moments of frustration, the Badgers proved themselves to be a hardworking, highly motivated and resilient team. I especially want to recognize the phenomenal job of first-year UW coach Bo Ryan, who, from day one, brought a winning atmosphere. Likewise, the close-knit group of players committed themselves to improving throughout the season. It all culminated with the team winning its last six Big Ten games. Coach Ryan and his players have given the State of Wisconsin a lot of great basketball to look forward to in the years to come. Winning the Big Ten is an impressive achievement, one that the players, coaches, and fans should be proud of for as long as they live. The Badgers' season, however, is not done yet. I look forward to cheering the team on during ``March Madness,'' and hope to watch this hard-working team make it all the way to Atlanta for the Final Four. On Wisconsin!

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this week marks the 90th anniversary of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. With over 300,000 members and 1,500 chapters across the country, Hadassah is the largest women's and largest Jewish membership organization in the United States. Over the last nine decades, its devoted members have exhibited the best of the American philanthropic and volunteer spirit in pursuing the organization's mission of a peaceful and secure Israel, a vital Jewish culture, and the Jewish imperative for social justice. Today in Israel, Hadassah continues to add to a well-established humanitarian record that has fostered peace, understanding, and prosperity for all Israeli citizens. The Hadassah Medical Organization (HMO) operates two hospitals, ninety outpatient clinics, and numerous community health centers that provide state of the art health care to 600,000 patients a year--regardless of race, religion, or creed. These medical facilities often treat the most critically wounded in the region's on-going conflicts and the support they receive from Hadassah members allows them to save lives. The HMO reaches out beyond Israel, providing medical personnel and training during international health crises, enhancing the welfare of communities around the globe. Here in United States, Hadassah's women's health and education initiatives have enhanced the health and well being of the American Jewish community and our Nation. Its informative awareness campaigns on breast cancer, osteoporosis, and eating disorders have empowered women of all ages to make healthy lifestyle decisions. Hadassah has strengthened American Jewish culture through sponsorship of Jewish and Hebrew educational classes and study groups. Mr. President, for ninety years Hadassah has brought Jewish-American women together to explore their shared faith and connection to Israel. On this week of their 90th anniversary, I commend their good work and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the election reform legislation we are considering today. The election of 2000 lay bare many problems in our election system and highlighted some of the barriers to voting which have kept too many from the polls over the years. If we are to eliminate these barriers and conduct federal elections which truly ensure equal access to the polls and protect voters' rights, as already required by law, we need to have consistent standards for voting systems and the administration of elections. And, if we are sincere about instituting reforms then it is not enough for us to set standards. We must also provide the funding to help implement these standards. Fortunately, the bipartisan substitute amendment to S. 565 authorizes $3.5 billion over the next five years for grants to states and localities to do just that. While the Justice Department will have a prominent role in the implementation of this election reform legislation, the bill before us also creates a new federal agency, the Election Administration Commission. This Commission will administer voting system standards, provisional voting requirements, the establishment of computerized, statewide voter registration systems, and grant programs and it would assume the functions of the Office of Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission. The new Commission will conduct studies on election technology and administration and submit a report to Congress and the President with recommendations for administrative and legislative action. I am especially pleased we are directing the Commission to study and make recommendations for us to consider future reforms because I believe that there are other reforms worth considering and implementing. One such reform I have advocated for many years now is to change our election day, and I was pleased to join with my colleagues in offering an amendment which addresses this issue. Senators Hollings, Reid, and I offered an amendment which was adopted late yesterday which directs the Election Administration Commission to study the viability of changing the day for congressional and presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to a holiday or the weekend, with the possibility of looking at Veterans Day or the first weekend in November. Last year, and earlier back in 1997, during the 105th Congress, I introduced legislation that would move federal elections to the weekend. The legislation already directs the new Commission to study the feasibility and advisability of conducting elections for federal office on different days, at different places, and during different hours, including the advisability of establishing a uniform closing time and establishing election day as a federal holiday. Our amendment requires that they complete such a study within 6 months after the establishment of the Election Administration Commission. Last year, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, presented its recommendations to the President on how to improve the administration of elections in our country. One of the Commission's recommendations was that we move Election Day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As might have been expected, this proposal was not well received by veterans groups who rightly consider this a diminishment of their service and the day that historically has been designated to honor that service. While I agree with the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day, and I am interested in exploring the possibility of moving election to an existing Federal holiday such as Veterans Day, I believe we can achieve all the benefits of holiday voting without offending our veterans by moving our elections to the weekend. My weekend voting proposal, which I hope the Commission will consider in its study, would call for the polls to be open the same hours across the continental United States, addressing the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Weekend voting also has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. Weekend voting would have polls open nationwide for a uniform period of time on Saturday and Sunday. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. Election officials could close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open on Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances. Amidst all the discussion about election reform, there is growing support for uniform polling hours. The free-wheeling atmosphere surrounding election night in November 2000, with the networks calling the outcome of elections in States when polling places were still open in many places, and in some cases even in the very States being called, cannot be repeated. While it is difficult to determine the impact this information has on voter turnout, there is no question that it contributes to the popular sentiment that voting doesn't matter. At the end of the day, as we assess how to make our elections better, we are not only seeking to make voting more equitable, we are also looking for ways to engage Americans in our democracy. Mr. President, I come from the business world where you had a perfect gauge of what the public thought of you and your products. If you turned a profit, you knew the public liked your product; if you didn't, you knew you needed to make changes. If customers weren't showing up when your store was open, you knew you had to change your store hours. In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land- owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. Sixty percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we saw in this last election, even with our relatively low voter turnout, long lines in many polling places kept some waiting even longer than 1 or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all Americans, especially working families. Since I introduced my weekend voting legislation in 1997, a number of States have been experimenting with novel ways to increase voter turnout and satisfaction. Oregon conducted the first Presidential elections completely by mail, resulting in impressive increases in voter turnout. Texas has implemented an early voting plan which also resulted in increased turnout. And California has relaxed restrictions on absentee voting, and even had weekend voting in some localities. Although there are security concerns that need to be ironed out, Internet voting has tremendous potential to transform the way we vote. In Arizona's Democratic primary 46 percent of all votes came via the Internet. The Defense Department coordinated a pilot program with several U.S. counties and the Federal Voting Assistance Program to have overseas voters, primarily military voters, cast their votes via the Internet. It is becoming increasingly clear that these new models can increase voter turnout, and voters are much more pleased with the additional convenience and ease with voting. For decades we have seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote; that number dropped to 49 percent in the 1996 election. We saw a minor increase in the 2000 Presidential election with voter turnout at 51 percent of eligible voters, however, not a significant increase given the closeness of the election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal. Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this dropoff. Certainly, common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in government institutions is one logical reason. However, I would like to point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both groups are equally disgruntled with government. Thus, we must explore ways to make our electoral process more user friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive. Of 44 democracies surveyed, 29 of them allow their citizens to vote on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these nations, voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can do better. That is why I believe we should consider weekend voting. Mr. President, I recognize a change of this magnitude may take some time. But the many questions raised by our last election have given us a unique opportunity to reassess all aspects of voting in America. We finally have the momentum to accomplish real reform. How much lower should our citizens' confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more ``consumer-friendly'' polling system? How much more should voting turnout decline before we realize we need a change? Weekend voting will not solve all of this democracy's problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's lifestyle of the 21st century. I am pleased that the Senate saw fit to adopt our amendment and I am looking forward to hearing the views of the new Election Administration Commission on this matter.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act, the Physician Wage Fairness Act, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act, and the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act. I am proud to cosponsor this package of legislation that will finally begin to address the grossly distorted Medicare reimbursement system, which penalizes health care providers in States like Wisconsin for being efficient as they provide high-quality care, and penalizes seniors in Wisconsin by delivering fewer benefits than seniors in other States receive. I want to commend Senator Feingold and Senator Collins for their hard work and commitment to fixing this problem, and I am proud to join them as an original cosponsor in this effort. This issue points to a basic question of fairness. The current Medicare reimbursement system is extremely unfair for Wisconsin. Because Wisconsin has been successful in holding down health care costs, current Medicare payment rates are very low in comparison to higher cost States, like Florida and California. In other words, the current system effectively punishes Wisconsin providers for being more efficient, and puts Medicare beneficiaries in Wisconsin at an unfair disadvantage compared to beneficiaries in other States. This system has to change. My constituents in Wisconsin pay the same Medicare payroll tax as people in other States. They suffer from the same illnesses; they need the same treatments; they see the same types of health providers. Yet Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries receive on average $3,795 in Medicare benefits per year, the eighth lowest in the country. That's 25 percent below the national average of $5,034. A study conducted by the Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative found that this costs Wisconsin nearly a billion dollars each year in Medicare dollars lost. There is simply no logical reason why Wisconsin doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and ultimately, Wisconsin beneficiaries, should receive less reimbursement and fewer Medicare benefits than other States receive. And there is no logical reason why Medicare tax dollars paid by Wisconsinites should instead be used to pay higher rates to providers and greater benefits to beneficiaries in other States. And this system isn't just bad for seniors on Medicare. The current system also has major consequences for businesses and non-Medicare patients in Wisconsin. When Medicare reimbursement to hospitals or nursing homes or doctors is inadequate, somebody has to make up the difference in order for these providers to stay afloat. This means that Wisconsin employers who provide health insurance for their employees, and patients who pay all or part of their health care bills, must pay higher prices and premiums to make up the shortfall. This is unfair to all of Wisconsin's citizens and exacerbates the problem of rising health care costs. We should all be outraged by a system that treats seniors in some States like second-class citizens. Congress must stop sanctioning the current system, which penalizes Medicare beneficiaries based on where they live, penalizes providers for being efficient, and rewards providers that do not do their part to hold the line on costs. This backward system simply makes no sense. The package of bills introduced today will finally begin to turn this system around and ensure that health care providers in Wisconsin and similarly affected States are adequately reimbursed and rewarded for providing high quality, cost-effective care. It will eliminate outdated and inaccurate data that is currently used to determine Medicare's flawed payment rates. And most importantly, it will help level the playing field for seniors in Wisconsin by helping to ensure that they have access to the same benefits as seniors in other States. First, the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act will create a reimbursement system for nursing homes that is actually based on accurate nursing home data. This would seem to be common sense; yet the current formula for determining Medicare nursing home payments is based on hospital wage data that is inaccurate and discriminates against many States like Wisconsin. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, is now compiling nursing home wage data but as of yet has not finalized a plan to utilize it. This bill would set October 1, 2002 as the date for which CMS must incorporate the nursing home data. Second, the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act would begin to reverse the backward incentive structure in today's Medicare system. Medicare currently penalizes low-cost, high-quality States and health care providers by delivering inadequate reimbursement for their services. It just makes no sense to penalize providers who are working hard to be cost-effective and provide high-quality care at the same time. This second bill would create 4 demonstration projects to provide bonus incentive payments to high-quality, low-cost hospitals and doctors in the demonstration States. These States would also have to implement a plan to encourage more of their providers to deliver low- cost, high-quality care. Third, the Physician Wage Fairness Act would correct a flaw in the payment system for physicians. The current physician payment formula includes a geographic adjustor that is outdated. Many studies now point to the fact that the labor market for health professionals is actually a national labor market and therefore, a geographic adjustor simply does not match today's reality. This bill would eliminate the geographic adjustor and bring the physician payment formula up to date. Wisconsin's physicians stand to gain $8 million more in Medicare reimbursement with passage of this legislation. Finally, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act would help address the issue of shortages of health professionals in underserved areas. It allows the HHS Secretary to use Medicare Graduate Medical Education funds to create a program to give providers in underserved areas financial incentives to attract educators and clinical practitioners. This package of legislation is not the end of the story when it comes to fixing Medicare's current flawed payment system. In addition to this package, for the past 2 years I have been a cosponsor of the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act, introduced by Senators Harkin and Craig. This bill also works to level the playing field between high payment States and low payment States, with a particular emphasis on improving reimbursement rates for rural areas. And I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feingold and Senator Collins on additional legislation that will deal with the complicated problems of hospital reimbursement and Medicare + Choice. But these bills are an important first step toward fixing a system that is not just unfair to my State; it is inaccurate, outdated, and creates perverse incentives for inefficient providers. Many of us in the Congress are working to update Medicare and modernize its structure to fit today's health care system. It is critical that we add a prescription drug benefit for seniors so they don't have to choose between taking their medicine and eating their next meal. It makes sense to add more preventive benefits to keep seniors healthy at the start rather than only treating illnesses when they become more serious. I strongly support these efforts and hope that Congress will act this year. But if we don't also fix the inequities in Medicare's payment system, these new benefits could also turn out to be inequitable for Wisconsin's seniors. This is an issue that must be addressed if Congress is serious about passing real Medicare reform. Again, I want to commend Senators Feingold and Collins for their hard work on this package. I look forward to working with them as Medicare reform moves forward.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safe Explosives Act. This legislation will help prevent the criminal use and accidental misuse of explosive materials. The events of September 11 have tragically demonstrated how good terrorists are at seeking out loopholes in our Nation's defenses. Law enforcement, now more than ever, must be several steps ahead of these criminals. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that in some States it is easier to get enough explosives to take down a house than it is to buy a gun, get a drivers' license, or even obtain a fishing license. Currently, it is far too easy for would-be terrorists and criminals to obtain explosive materials. Although permits are required for interstate purchases of explosives, there are no current uniform national limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single state by a resident of that State. As a result, a patchwork quilt of State regulations covers the intrastate purchase of explosive materials. In some States, anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy plastique explosives or a box of dynamite. No background check is conducted, and no effort is made to check whether the purchaser knows how to properly use this deadly material. In at least 12 States, there are little to no restrictions on the intrastate purchase of explosives. Since September 11, the threat of a terrorist attack involving explosives is more real than ever. As Richard Reid, the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' recently demonstrated when he tried to take down a Boeing 767 en route from Paris to Miami, terrorists are actively trying to use explosives in pursuit of their aims. We must be more vigilant in overseeing the purchase and possession of explosives if we ever hope to prevent future potential disasters. The Safe Explosives Act would close the deadly loophole in our current laws by requiring people who want to acquire and possess explosive materials to obtain a permit. This measure would significantly reduce the availability of explosives to terrorists, felons, and others prohibited by current federal law from possessing dangerous explosives. Let me elaborate on what the proposal does. As I said, under current law anyone who is involved in interstate shipment, purchase, or possession of explosives must have a Federal permit. This legislation creates the same requirement for intrastate purchases. It calls for two types of permits for these intrastate purchasers: user permits and limited user permits. The user permit lasts for 3 years and allows unlimited explosives purchases. The limited user permit also expires after 3 years, but only allows six purchases per year. We created this two-tier system so that low-volume users would not be burdened by regulations. The limited permit, like the user permit, imposes commonsense rules such as a background check, monitoring of explosives purchases, secure storage, and report of sale or theft of explosives. However, the Safe Explosives Act does not subject the limited user to the record keeping requirements currently required for full permit holders. In addition to creating the permit system, our measure makes some commonsense addition to the classes of people who are barred from buying or possessing explosives. Current Federal explosives law prohibits certain people from purchasing or possessing explosives. The list of people barred is roughly parallel to those prohibited by Federal firearms law. For example, convicted felons are not allowed to buy guns or explosives. However, while current law bars nonimmigrant aliens from buying guns, they are not prohibited from buying explosives. That makes no sense. The Safe Explosives Act would stop nonimmigrant aliens from being able to buy explosives. Since we now know that several of the September 11 terrorists were nonimmigrant aliens, and that sleeper terrorist cells made up of nonimmigrant aliens have been operating within U.S. borders for number of years, this provision is especially important. In addition, the Safe Explosives Act improves the public's safety by requiring permit holders to adhere to proper storage and safety regulations. These provisions will help ensure the safety of explosives handlers and prevent accidental or criminal detonation of explosives. Sadly, each year, many people are seriously injured or killed by misuse and criminal use of explosives. For example, in 1997, there were 4,777 explosives incidents, killing 27 and injuring 164 people, and resulting in more than $7.3 million in property damage. Our proposal will help reduce these numbers. This measure strikes a reasonable balance between stopping dangerous people from getting explosives and helping legitimate users obtain and possess explosives. Most large commercial users already have explosives permits because they engage in interstate explosives transport. These users would not be significantly affected by our legislation. The low- volume users will be able to quickly and cheaply get a limited permit. And high-volume intrastate purchasers who are running businesses that require explosives should easily be able to get an unlimited user permit. Also, the measure will not affect those who use black or smokeless powder for recreation, as the legislation does not change current regulations on those particular materials. Our goal is simple. We must take all possible steps to keep deadly explosives out of the hands of dangerous individuals seeking to threaten our livelihood and security. The Safe Explosives Act is critical legislation, supported by the administration. It is designed solely to the interest of public safety. It will significantly enhance our efforts to limit the proliferation of explosives to would be terrorists and criminals. It will close a loophole that could potentially cause mass destruction of property and life. I hope my colleagues will support our efforts to pass this vital law. Thank you. 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 Safe Explosives Act. This legislation will help prevent the criminal use and accidental misuse of explosive materials. The events of September 11 have tragically demonstrated how good terrorists are at seeking out loopholes in our Nation's defenses. Law enforcement, now more than ever, must be several steps ahead of these criminals. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that in some States it is easier to get enough explosives to take down a house than it is to buy a gun, get a drivers' license, or even obtain a fishing license. Currently, it is far too easy for would-be terrorists and criminals to obtain explosive materials. Although permits are required for interstate purchases of explosives, there are no current uniform national limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single state by a resident of that State. As a result, a patchwork quilt of State regulations covers the intrastate purchase of explosive materials. In some States, anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy plastique explosives or a box of dynamite. No background check is conducted, and no effort is made to check whether the purchaser knows how to properly use this deadly material. In at least 12 States, there are little to no restrictions on the intrastate purchase of explosives. Since September 11, the threat of a terrorist attack involving explosives is more real than ever. As Richard Reid, the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' recently demonstrated when he tried to take down a Boeing 767 en route from Paris to Miami, terrorists are actively trying to use explosives in pursuit of their aims. We must be more vigilant in overseeing the purchase and possession of explosives if we ever hope to prevent future potential disasters. The Safe Explosives Act would close the deadly loophole in our current laws by requiring people who want to acquire and possess explosive materials to obtain a permit. This measure would significantly reduce the availability of explosives to terrorists, felons, and others prohibited by current federal law from possessing dangerous explosives. Let me elaborate on what the proposal does. As I said, under current law anyone who is involved in interstate shipment, purchase, or possession of explosives must have a Federal permit. This legislation creates the same requirement for intrastate purchases. It calls for two types of permits for these intrastate purchasers: user permits and limited user permits. The user permit lasts for 3 years and allows unlimited explosives purchases. The limited user permit also expires after 3 years, but only allows six purchases per year. We created this two-tier system so that low-volume users would not be burdened by regulations. The limited permit, like the user permit, imposes commonsense rules such as a background check, monitoring of explosives purchases, secure storage, and report of sale or theft of explosives. However, the Safe Explosives Act does not subject the limited user to the record keeping requirements currently required for full permit holders. In addition to creating the permit system, our measure makes some commonsense addition to the classes of people who are barred from buying or possessing explosives. Current Federal explosives law prohibits certain people from purchasing or possessing explosives. The list of people barred is roughly parallel to those prohibited by Federal firearms law. For example, convicted felons are not allowed to buy guns or explosives. However, while current law bars nonimmigrant aliens from buying guns, they are not prohibited from buying explosives. That makes no sense. The Safe Explosives Act would stop nonimmigrant aliens from being able to buy explosives. Since we now know that several of the September 11 terrorists were nonimmigrant aliens, and that sleeper terrorist cells made up of nonimmigrant aliens have been operating within U.S. borders for number of years, this provision is especially important. In addition, the Safe Explosives Act improves the public's safety by requiring permit holders to adhere to proper storage and safety regulations. These provisions will help ensure the safety of explosives handlers and prevent accidental or criminal detonation of explosives. Sadly, each year, many people are seriously injured or killed by misuse and criminal use of explosives. For example, in 1997, there were 4,777 explosives incidents, killing 27 and injuring 164 people, and resulting in more than $7.3 million in property damage. Our proposal will help reduce these numbers. This measure strikes a reasonable balance between stopping dangerous people from getting explosives and helping legitimate users obtain and possess explosives. Most large commercial users already have explosives permits because they engage in interstate explosives transport. These users would not be significantly affected by our legislation. The low- volume users will be able to quickly and cheaply get a limited permit. And high-volume intrastate purchasers who are running businesses that require explosives should easily be able to get an unlimited user permit. Also, the measure will not affect those who use black or smokeless powder for recreation, as the legislation does not change current regulations on those particular materials. Our goal is simple. We must take all possible steps to keep deadly explosives out of the hands of dangerous individuals seeking to threaten our livelihood and security. The Safe Explosives Act is critical legislation, supported by the administration. It is designed solely to the interest of public safety. It will significantly enhance our efforts to limit the proliferation of explosives to would be terrorists and criminals. It will close a loophole that could potentially cause mass destruction of property and life. I hope my colleagues will support our efforts to pass this vital law. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act, the Physician Wage Fairness Act, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act, and the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act. I am proud to cosponsor this package of legislation that will finally begin to address the grossly distorted Medicare reimbursement system, which penalizes health care providers in States like Wisconsin for being efficient as they provide high-quality care, and penalizes seniors in Wisconsin by delivering fewer benefits than seniors in other States receive. I want to commend Senator Feingold and Senator Collins for their hard work and commitment to fixing this problem, and I am proud to join them as an original cosponsor in this effort. This issue points to a basic question of fairness. The current Medicare reimbursement system is extremely unfair for Wisconsin. Because Wisconsin has been successful in holding down health care costs, current Medicare payment rates are very low in comparison to higher cost States, like Florida and California. In other words, the current system effectively punishes Wisconsin providers for being more efficient, and puts Medicare beneficiaries in Wisconsin at an unfair disadvantage compared to beneficiaries in other States. This system has to change. My constituents in Wisconsin pay the same Medicare payroll tax as people in other States. They suffer from the same illnesses; they need the same treatments; they see the same types of health providers. Yet Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries receive on average $3,795 in Medicare benefits per year, the eighth lowest in the country. That's 25 percent below the national average of $5,034. A study conducted by the Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative found that this costs Wisconsin nearly a billion dollars each year in Medicare dollars lost. There is simply no logical reason why Wisconsin doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and ultimately, Wisconsin beneficiaries, should receive less reimbursement and fewer Medicare benefits than other States receive. And there is no logical reason why Medicare tax dollars paid by Wisconsinites should instead be used to pay higher rates to providers and greater benefits to beneficiaries in other States. And this system isn't just bad for seniors on Medicare. The current system also has major consequences for businesses and non-Medicare patients in Wisconsin. When Medicare reimbursement to hospitals or nursing homes or doctors is inadequate, somebody has to make up the difference in order for these providers to stay afloat. This means that Wisconsin employers who provide health insurance for their employees, and patients who pay all or part of their health care bills, must pay higher prices and premiums to make up the shortfall. This is unfair to all of Wisconsin's citizens and exacerbates the problem of rising health care costs. We should all be outraged by a system that treats seniors in some States like second-class citizens. Congress must stop sanctioning the current system, which penalizes Medicare beneficiaries based on where they live, penalizes providers for being efficient, and rewards providers that do not do their part to hold the line on costs. This backward system simply makes no sense. The package of bills introduced today will finally begin to turn this system around and ensure that health care providers in Wisconsin and similarly affected States are adequately reimbursed and rewarded for providing high quality, cost-effective care. It will eliminate outdated and inaccurate data that is currently used to determine Medicare's flawed payment rates. And most importantly, it will help level the playing field for seniors in Wisconsin by helping to ensure that they have access to the same benefits as seniors in other States. First, the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act will create a reimbursement system for nursing homes that is actually based on accurate nursing home data. This would seem to be common sense; yet the current formula for determining Medicare nursing home payments is based on hospital wage data that is inaccurate and discriminates against many States like Wisconsin. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, is now compiling nursing home wage data but as of yet has not finalized a plan to utilize it. This bill would set October 1, 2002 as the date for which CMS must incorporate the nursing home data. Second, the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act would begin to reverse the backward incentive structure in today's Medicare system. Medicare currently penalizes low-cost, high-quality States and health care providers by delivering inadequate reimbursement for their services. It just makes no sense to penalize providers who are working hard to be cost-effective and provide high-quality care at the same time. This second bill would create 4 demonstration projects to provide bonus incentive payments to high-quality, low-cost hospitals and doctors in the demonstration States. These States would also have to implement a plan to encourage more of their providers to deliver low- cost, high-quality care. Third, the Physician Wage Fairness Act would correct a flaw in the payment system for physicians. The current physician payment formula includes a geographic adjustor that is outdated. Many studies now point to the fact that the labor market for health professionals is actually a national labor market and therefore, a geographic adjustor simply does not match today's reality. This bill would eliminate the geographic adjustor and bring the physician payment formula up to date. Wisconsin's physicians stand to gain $8 million more in Medicare reimbursement with passage of this legislation. Finally, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act would help address the issue of shortages of health professionals in underserved areas. It allows the HHS Secretary to use Medicare Graduate Medical Education funds to create a program to give providers in underserved areas financial incentives to attract educators and clinical practitioners. This package of legislation is not the end of the story when it comes to fixing Medicare's current flawed payment system. In addition to this package, for the past 2 years I have been a cosponsor of the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act, introduced by Senators Harkin and Craig. This bill also works to level the playing field between high payment States and low payment States, with a particular emphasis on improving reimbursement rates for rural areas. And I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feingold and Senator Collins on additional legislation that will deal with the complicated problems of hospital reimbursement and Medicare + Choice. But these bills are an important first step toward fixing a system that is not just unfair to my State; it is inaccurate, outdated, and creates perverse incentives for inefficient providers. Many of us in the Congress are working to update Medicare and modernize its structure to fit today's health care system. It is critical that we add a prescription drug benefit for seniors so they don't have to choose between taking their medicine and eating their next meal. It makes sense to add more preventive benefits to keep seniors healthy at the start rather than only treating illnesses when they become more serious. I strongly support these efforts and hope that Congress will act this year. But if we don't also fix the inequities in Medicare's payment system, these new benefits could also turn out to be inequitable for Wisconsin's seniors. This is an issue that must be addressed if Congress is serious about passing real Medicare reform. Again, I want to commend Senators Feingold and Collins for their hard work on this package. I look forward to working with them as Medicare reform moves forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President: I rise today in support of the farm bill and look forward to the House and Senate conferees working quickly to ensure that it is in place for the 2002 crop year. I also rise to explain my opposition to the amendment offered unsuccessfully earlier today by Senator Domenici regarding the dairy program included in the Senate version of the farm bill. This amendment would have replaced the dairy program that exists in the farm bill with a program that pays producers regardless of the actual market price of milk. Furthermore, the amendment failed to place a cap on the level of production eligible for a payment. The Senate version of the farm bill restores a much needed safety-net for farmers and ranchers throughout the country. This bill rewrites the 1996 farm bill which has left farmers vulnerable to the continued downward spiral of prices. Because of the 1996 bill's deficiencies, Congress has had to approve billions of dollars in emergency assistance every year. This is not an effective or responsible or fair way to set the farm policy for our Nation, and I am pleased that the Senate has stepped up to the task of providing needed and honest reform. The Senate bill also provides significant new spending for conservation and nutrition programs. And it targets assistance where it is needed, the small family farm, by limiting Federal payments to $275,000 a year. All in all, the Senate bill is a comprehensive measure that will help farmers in Wisconsin successfully weather volatile price fluctuations and other risks associated with farming. Of particular interest to my State is the dairy title of this bill. It is counter-cyclical creating a price safety-net for dairy producers when milk prices fall below the 5-year all-milk price or a $16.94 class I price. The Domenici amendment would have made payments to producers regardless of market conditions. I cannot support that. We should provide adequate relief to producers when prices decline, not simply pay farmers to over-produce and depress prices. Another key component of the dairy program currently in the Senate version of the farm bill is the limitations on payments. I worked with Senator Daschle and Senator Harkin to make sure payments under our dairy program were capped so that benefits would not flow primarily to huge farms. We limit payments to 8 million pounds of production or the amount of milk produced in a year by approximately 400 cows. Given that the average herd size in Wisconsin is 65, I would have preferred a much lower cap. However, the final number was a compromise capable of winning the support of a majority of the States. Unfortunately, the Domenici amendment would undo this fragile coalition by removing any limit on the payment a producer can receive. This uncapping of the benefits would have shifted the level of assistance from the small and medium size producers, who need the help the most, to the larger operators. And while that may be popular out west, where dairy herds routinely run to the thousands, it is unfair to the Midwest and Northeast where smaller family farms predominate. The dairy program in the Senate bill is not ideal for me nor any other Senator in this body. Yet it represents a significant improvement over previous policies, such as regional price-fixing compacts, and represents a delicate balance between previously warring regions. I am pleased that the Senate rejected the Domenici amendment and agreed to preserve the dairy program we worked out, perhaps the only dairy assistance plan that can garner majority support. Furthermore, I urge the conference committee to consider carefully the enormous effort behind and enormous fragility of the dairy section of this bill. I plead with the committee not to return to the days of bitter regional wars over compacts and other special dairy deals. Let this farm bill be remembered as the legislation that marked the beginning of national and fair dairy policy in this country.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I am pleased to rise this afternoon with Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley in support of this important amendment to the farm bill regarding payment limitations. Agriculture is the backbone of America's rural economy, and for Wisconsin it is the backbone of the State's economy. Nearly 18,000 small- and medium-sized dairy farms make up Wisconsin's rural landscape. Their survival in a volatile market is one of my top priorities. I am pleased that the Senate version of the farm bill recognizes the importance of dairy and creates a safety net for producers during periods of depressed prices. One important component of this new dairy program is that payments are capped to a producer's first 8 million pounds of production--that is the average production from a herd of about 400 cows. While I would have liked to see a lower cap--Wisconsin's average herd size is closer to 70 cows--this provision will help to target payments to those who really need the assistance. The same cannot be said of payments made to producers of traditional row crops under the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill. It was supposed to limit producers of row crops to a maximum of $460,000 in government payments per year. However, loopholes in the law have allowed large producers to receive much more than that. A comprehensive review of past farm payments show that 10 percent of the producers--those with the largest farms--received almost 70 percent of the total assistance. How can we support millions in government assistance to a very few rich farmers in a very few States? The House-passed version of the farm bill exacerbates this situation. It raises the payment limitation to $550,000 per year without closing the loopholes--loopholes that allow rural reverse Robin Hoods to continue sucking government payments away from family farms and onto million-dollar plantations. The bill that we are debating today in the Senate provides for a limit of $500,000 per year, again preserving the loopholes that allow a few producers to receive much more. The Dorgan- Grassley amendment not only closes the loopholes but also limits total benefits to $275,000 per year per producer. Current law and both the House and Senate version of the farm bill also allow for payments to go to absentee landlords not living on their farms or involved in their day-to-day operation. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment fixes that injustice by requiring recipients of federal payments to provide 1,000 hours per year in work related to the operation of that farm. Further, individuals with more than $2.5 million in adjusted gross income will not be eligible for assistance. I cannot believe that anyone would oppose this provision. Who advocates making farm payments to farmers who don't farm, or even live on a farm? Who is in favor of providing income security for individuals' with some of the highest incomes in the Nation? With an uncertain economic future, a possible return to deficit spending, a war on terrorism and an immediate need to strengthen our homeland defense, we have even more of an obligation to spend our farm dollars wisely. Now is the time to make sure farm payments go only to farmers who need the money to farm--not to millionaires who need to make mortgage payments on their city penthouses. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment restores integrity to our farm programs, reduces pressure on land rents and prices, dampens overproduction and raises farm income for our small- and medium-sized family farmers. I am proud to support this amendment in the name of taxpayers and struggling family farmers in Wisconsin and across our nation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in past recessions Congress has been quick to extend benefits for the unemployed. Every recession over the past thirty years resulted in a extension of unemployment benefits. Helping unemployed workers has never been a partisan issue, both Democrats and Republicans have worked to help unemployed workers in times of economic difficulty. During the recession of the early 1990's we extended a total of 33 weeks of additional benefits. Current data shows this recession started last March, and we are only now taking steps to finally extend unemployment benefits. We have waited too long, but I am glad the day for action has come at last. I hope the other body will be able to quickly pass this legislation so that this delayed assistance will not be delayed any longer. While I am relieved the Senate has acted, I was disappointed we were not able to do more for workers. Helping people maintain health coverage while out of work would have gone a long way to making working families feel more secure. Covering part-time workers and the newly hired, and providing the States with the necessary funds to make those reforms, also would have helped this country on the road to economic recovery. While some of my colleagues believe that what we have done today will have little or no positive effect on the economy, I disagree. Extending benefits puts money into the hands of people who really need it, and people who will be forced to spend it. The money we send out will be spent on groceries, clothes, and mortgages. It will meet the day-to-day needs of working families, and it will be spent right in their communities. It will spur local economies and prevent the recession from deepening. An unemployment check is always second best to a paycheck. The 142,000 workers in Wisconsin who have been forced to file for benefits want a job, they want to work, they want to contribute to the economy and pay taxes. Unemployment insurance is meant to help hard working people through difficult times. It is an insurance plan that workers and employers contribute to for emergencies just like today. American workers have paid for these benefits, they have earned them, and they deserve this extension.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, to distort Shakespeare's words, I come to the floor today to bury the stimulus package, not to praise it. There has not been much praiseworthy in the way Congress has responded to the recession that started last March and intensified after the attacks of 9-11. Last fall, and even this month, there were short term actions we could have taken that would have had immediate and beneficial economic and humanitarian results. We could have extended unemployment benefits, as we have in every recession, and as I still hope we will. We could have offered an immediate tax rebate to those lower income workers who did not receive a full rebate from the first tax cut. We could have used the Medicaid payment formula to send financially strapped states struggling to provide health care for their residents an immediate infusion of cash. We could have offered a temporary acceleration of depreciation to encourage reluctant businesses to invest now in the recovering economy. We agreed on basic principles: help now, and do no harm in the long run. We agreed on the need. But we could not agree to put aside our partisan agendas long enough to do what we all agreed was right. Instead of talking about what we could do to help workers unemployed now, factories lying idle now, we redebated tax cuts passed last spring and pushed tax breaks that wouldn't even take effect for 10 years. We should have focused on workers, investment, consumer confidence. Instead we fought over estate taxes and tried to lay the blame for our inaction. As the recession winds down and the war on terrorism continues, I sincerely hope Congress will be able to rise above the partisan bickering that doomed the stimulus package. We will have many opportunities this year to act in a bipartisan manner to make this Nation stronger, safer, and better. We will also have many opportunities to wrap the flag around our pet proposals and fight for political advantage. We should commit today to learn from the mistakes that have killed the stimulus package--not to repeat them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss judicial nominations and the pace being set by the Judiciary Committee. It is the Senate's responsibility to confirm judges and fill the vacancies in the Federal judiciary. Unfortunately, this constitutional responsibility has become increasingly politicized in the last few years. It seems that the people accused of slowing the process last year are the same ones that are pushing for faster confirmations today. And those who wanted more judges confirmed last Congress are now defending the pace of current confirmations. While we all expected that dynamic once the party in control of the White House and the Senate changed, it is still disappointing. It would be a good idea to agree upon a set of rules that governed the pace of the confirmation process regardless of the party in control of the White House or the Senate. Since that is unlikely, we are now required to defend our rate of confirmations. The only way to do that is to compare the pace this year with that of past years. When we do that, we find that there is little to criticize in the performance of this year's Judiciary Committee. By the end of this session of Congress, we will have confirmed at least 27 district court judges and 6 circuit judges. The Judiciary Committee has held 11 nominations hearings for judges since control of the chamber changed. To put that in context, by the end of the year, the Senate will have confirmed more judges in the first year of the Bush Presidency than in either the first year of the first President Bush or President Clinton. It is also far more than the 17 judicial confirmations in 1996 and almost the exact number confirmed in 1999 and 2000 when 34 and 39 were confirmed respectively. The record also shows that close to 70 percent of the vacancies have existed long before President Bush took office. The Senate chose not to act, in some cases for years, on President Clinton's nominees to fill the positions. The cries of judicial emergencies and demands for immediate action now ring a bit hollow when the judgeships could have been filled years ago. Nonetheless, it is our responsibility to take action on the judicial nominees in a timely manner. We have been doing just that. As we go forward, I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to confirm more judges. The Judiciary Committee has a noble tradition of cooperation in approving judges who are qualified, respectful of the law, and moderate in their approach. It is our responsibility to return to that tradition and confirm judges who represent the ideological middle ground.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I fully concur with the remarks of the Senator from Iowa and the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Department should move with the greatest dispatch to design and construct these biosecurity-3 facilities. It is important that we move forward quickly in order to enhance research in this critical area, and it is also important that research facilities of this nature be in compliance with very strict biosecurity standards. Every area of our nation would see very significant damage to animal agriculture if certain diseases manifest themselves. The Department should use the authorities it has to accelerate the design and construction of these important facilities. california anti-terrorism information center

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, more than 2 months ago we witnessed the worst ever terrorist attack on American soil. The horrific sights of September 11, 2001, will be with us forever. Our Nation has come together during this difficult time and we will continue to strengthen our resolve in the days to come. I am pleased that Senator Hollings through his leadership and the hard work of his staff is able to present to the Senate this very important Aviation Security Act. Thanksgiving is just a few days away and millions of Americans will be traveling to visit family and friends. I am proud that we are able to return home and report to our constituents on the progress we have made in regards to strengthening our aviation security system. The conference report before the Senate brings a safer and more secure aviation network for the thousands of Americans who fly every day. Tougher safety standards, federalization of screening of passengers and their luggage, increased presence of sky marshals on flights and strengthening of cockpit doors are just a few of the important measures that take us in the direction of a new Federal and comprehensive safety network for our airports. I am also pleased that all who have access to aircrafts will be required to pass a background check. We have reached this very important agreement and now these new regulations and safety standards must be implemented fairly and consistently. Again, I congratulate Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain on their leadership on this issue and strongly support the conference report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Dager, a detailee on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2230, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate, the conference report on H.R. 2330, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002. The House approved this measure day before yesterday, and we need to take swift action in the Senate on final passage in order for the President to sign this conference report into law as soon as possible. This conference report includes $75.8 billion in total spending for fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used to support programs and services of the United States Department of Agriculture--except for the Forest Service--the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Of this total, $16 billion is discretionary spending, and this amount is within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. As I have stated before, this is not simply an ``agricultural'' bill. This bill not only supports the rural sector, it supports all sectors. It supports families in the cities; it supports inspectors along our borders; it supports the availability of drugs and vaccines to respond to the challenges of today and whatever tomorrow may bring. I support this conference report, and I hope all Senators will do the same. Again, I thank Senator Cochran, ranking member of this subcommittee, and his staff for their tireless and indispensable help this year. I also thank my staff and all people who have helped bring us to this final stage of the appropriations process.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley, Hatch, Carper, and Thurmond in introducing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the growing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange plaintiff class members. We have worked together on this legislation in past Congresses. In fact, last year a similar version of class action reform passed the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, the session ended before we could bring it to a vote of the full Senate. The problem that this bill addresses is simple. Too often, the class action procedure is being hijacked by unscrupulous parties who are more interested in making a dollar for themselves than helping the plaintiff class members remedy a legitimate harm. Let me give you just one well known example of the unfairness this bill attempts to correct. A few years ago, a class action lawsuit was begun against the Bank of Boston. Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI was an unnamed class member of that suit against her mortgage company. The case involved allegations that the bank had overcharged its mortgage customers and had kept excess money in their escrow accounts. It was ultimately settled. Ms. Preston was represented by a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who she had never met. The settlement they negotiated for her was a bad joke. She received four dollars and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys pocketed $8 million in fees. Soon after receiving her four dollars, Ms. Preston discovered that her lawyers helped pay for their fees by taking $80 from her escrow account. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the lawyers who in turn sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited, for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place. In response to this case and many more like it, we developed a measured, reasoned response to protect class action plaintiffs against a system which is subject to abuse. As in past years, the bill can be divided into three main sections, all of which provide enhanced protections for individual plaintiffs. First, the bill provides that every class action notice be written in plain, easily understandable English. Too many of the class action notices are written in legalese, designed to make it impossible for the average American to comprehend his rights and responsibilities as a member of the plaintiff class. The bill requires that a statement be included at the beginning of the notice written in large, bold type alerting the plaintiff that he is involved in a class action lawsuit and that his legal rights are affected by the contents of the notice. This means that every class member will understand the subject matter of the case and his rights and responsibilities as a participant in the lawsuit. Further, if the case were settled, the notice to the class members would clearly describe the terms of the settlement, the benefits to each plaintiff and a summary of the attorneys fees in the case and how they were calculated. Currently, none of this information is clearly communicated to the class members. Second, the bill requires that notice be given to State Attorneys General or the appropriate State regulatory authorities about proposed class settlements in Federal court which affect their constituents. This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a settlement is fair and to alert the court if they do not believe that it is. The Attorney General review is an extra layer of security for the plaintiffs and is designed to ensure that abusive settlements are not approved without a critical review by one or more experts. Third, the bill makes it easier to move State class action cases to Federal court by changing the diversity rules governing these actions. Class action cases often have national implications and are joined by plaintiffs from many, if not most, States. Currently, class actions are frequently heard by a State court judge in a venue chosen by the plaintiffs' attorneys to maximize the chance that the class action will be certified. For class actions, the certification process is usually more than half the battle. Once a set of plaintiffs succeeds in getting a judge to certify them as a class, the defendants are often faced with extraordinary costs associated with preparing for trial and dealing with a multitude of plaintiffs. So, the defendants settle the case at terms beneficial to the plaintiffs' attorneys, often at the expense of the plaintiffs themselves. A recent study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute demonstrates that class action cases are being brought disproportionately in a few counties where plaintiffs expect to be able to take advantage of lax certification rules. The study focused on three county courts, Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and Palm Beach County, FL, that have seen a steep rise in class action filings over the last several years that seems disproportional to their populations. They found that rural Madison County, IL ranked third nationwide, after Los Angeles County, California and Cook County, Illinois, in the estimated number of class actions filed each year, whereas rural Jefferson County and Palm Beach County ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. As plaintiff attorneys found that Madison County was a welcoming host, the number of class action suits filed there rose 1850 percent between 1998 and 2000. Another trend evident in the research was the use of ``cut-and- paste'' complaints in which plaintiffs' attorneys file a number of suits against different defendants in the same industry challenging standard industry practices. For example, within a one-week period early this year, six law firms filed nine nearly identical class actions in Madison County alleging that the automobile insurance industry is defrauding Americans in the way that they calculate claims rates for totaled vehicles. The system is not working as intended and needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to move more of these cases currently being brought in small state courts like Madison County, IL to Federal court. The Federal courts are better venues for class actions for a variety of reasons articulated clearly in a RAND study. RAND proposed three primary explanations why these cases should be in federal court. ``First, Federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more strictly than State judges, and deny certification in situations where a State judge might grant it improperly. Second, State judges may not have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more appropriate that this take place in federal court than in State court.'' We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give back to regular people their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. We believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley, Hatch, Carper, and Thurmond in introducing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the growing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange plaintiff class members. We have worked together on this legislation in past Congresses. In fact, last year a similar version of class action reform passed the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, the session ended before we could bring it to a vote of the full Senate. The problem that this bill addresses is simple. Too often, the class action procedure is being hijacked by unscrupulous parties who are more interested in making a dollar for themselves than helping the plaintiff class members remedy a legitimate harm. Let me give you just one well known example of the unfairness this bill attempts to correct. A few years ago, a class action lawsuit was begun against the Bank of Boston. Martha Preston from Baraboo, WI was an unnamed class member of that suit against her mortgage company. The case involved allegations that the bank had overcharged its mortgage customers and had kept excess money in their escrow accounts. It was ultimately settled. Ms. Preston was represented by a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who she had never met. The settlement they negotiated for her was a bad joke. She received four dollars and change in the lawsuit, while her attorneys pocketed $8 million in fees. Soon after receiving her four dollars, Ms. Preston discovered that her lawyers helped pay for their fees by taking $80 from her escrow account. Naturally shocked, she and the other plaintiffs sued the lawyers who in turn sued her in Alabama, a State she had never visited, for $25 million. Not only was she $75 poorer for her class action experience, but she also had to defend herself against a $25 million suit by the very people who took advantage of her in the first place. In response to this case and many more like it, we developed a measured, reasoned response to protect class action plaintiffs against a system which is subject to abuse. As in past years, the bill can be divided into three main sections, all of which provide enhanced protections for individual plaintiffs. First, the bill provides that every class action notice be written in plain, easily understandable English. Too many of the class action notices are written in legalese, designed to make it impossible for the average American to comprehend his rights and responsibilities as a member of the plaintiff class. The bill requires that a statement be included at the beginning of the notice written in large, bold type alerting the plaintiff that he is involved in a class action lawsuit and that his legal rights are affected by the contents of the notice. This means that every class member will understand the subject matter of the case and his rights and responsibilities as a participant in the lawsuit. Further, if the case were settled, the notice to the class members would clearly describe the terms of the settlement, the benefits to each plaintiff and a summary of the attorneys fees in the case and how they were calculated. Currently, none of this information is clearly communicated to the class members. Second, the bill requires that notice be given to State Attorneys General or the appropriate State regulatory authorities about proposed class settlements in Federal court which affect their constituents. This encourages a neutral third party to weigh in on whether a settlement is fair and to alert the court if they do not believe that it is. The Attorney General review is an extra layer of security for the plaintiffs and is designed to ensure that abusive settlements are not approved without a critical review by one or more experts. Third, the bill makes it easier to move State class action cases to Federal court by changing the diversity rules governing these actions. Class action cases often have national implications and are joined by plaintiffs from many, if not most, States. Currently, class actions are frequently heard by a State court judge in a venue chosen by the plaintiffs' attorneys to maximize the chance that the class action will be certified. For class actions, the certification process is usually more than half the battle. Once a set of plaintiffs succeeds in getting a judge to certify them as a class, the defendants are often faced with extraordinary costs associated with preparing for trial and dealing with a multitude of plaintiffs. So, the defendants settle the case at terms beneficial to the plaintiffs' attorneys, often at the expense of the plaintiffs themselves. A recent study on the class action problem by the Manhattan Institute demonstrates that class action cases are being brought disproportionately in a few counties where plaintiffs expect to be able to take advantage of lax certification rules. The study focused on three county courts, Madison County, IL; Jefferson County, TX; and Palm Beach County, FL, that have seen a steep rise in class action filings over the last several years that seems disproportional to their populations. They found that rural Madison County, IL ranked third nationwide, after Los Angeles County, California and Cook County, Illinois, in the estimated number of class actions filed each year, whereas rural Jefferson County and Palm Beach County ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. As plaintiff attorneys found that Madison County was a welcoming host, the number of class action suits filed there rose 1850 percent between 1998 and 2000. Another trend evident in the research was the use of ``cut-and- paste'' complaints in which plaintiffs' attorneys file a number of suits against different defendants in the same industry challenging standard industry practices. For example, within a one-week period early this year, six law firms filed nine nearly identical class actions in Madison County alleging that the automobile insurance industry is defrauding Americans in the way that they calculate claims rates for totaled vehicles. The system is not working as intended and needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to move more of these cases currently being brought in small state courts like Madison County, IL to Federal court. The Federal courts are better venues for class actions for a variety of reasons articulated clearly in a RAND study. RAND proposed three primary explanations why these cases should be in federal court. ``First, Federal judges scrutinize class action allegations more strictly than State judges, and deny certification in situations where a State judge might grant it improperly. Second, State judges may not have adequate resources to oversee and manage class actions with a national scope. Finally, if a single judge is to be charged with deciding what law will apply in a multistate class action, it is more appropriate that this take place in federal court than in State court.'' We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in Federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. Right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give back to regular people their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves us forward. It will help ensure that unsuspecting people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. We believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Gregg amendment. This amendment would entirely eliminate the $925 million in this bill that is intended to help school districts with critical construction and renovation needs, and instead divert it to title I. I strongly support both of these important programs. Title I serves our Nation's most disadvantaged children and helps ensure that they have the same educational opportunities as more affluent children. I am pleased that the bill before us includes a nearly $1.5 billion increase in title I for fiscal year 2002. I am committed to working to further increase title I funding this year and in future years, as it is the cornerstone of our Federal commitment to help low-income students succeed. While I appreciate the goals of the Gregg amendment and agree that title I must be one of our top priorities, I cannot support it at the expense of legitimate and urgent school construction needs. In my home State of Wisconsin, nearly 80 percent of schools were built before 1969. In a recent survey of 881 Wisconsin schools, the total statewide cost of all repairs and renovations that are needed to put schools in good overall condition was $1.55 billion. Clearly, we have a serious need to address school construction and renovation. Unfortunately, this amendment presents the Senate with a false and unnecessary choice. I agree that we need to do more for low-income children, and I intend to support the amendment to be offered by Senator Landrieu that will put more money into title I and target it to the lowest income students. But we cannot expect a child to learn in an old, dilapidated, or unsafe school with no access to the tools and technology that are so much a part of education today. The Gregg amendment would force us to abandon one critical education program for another, but I believe we can and must make both a priority. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gregg amendment and to support the Landrieu amendment later on, to ensure that the Federal Government provides funding for both school construction and assistance to low-income students. We can afford to do both.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the remarks and understand the concerns expressed by my colleagues. I agree that patients should not have to wait for promising new therapies due to insufficient resources at FDA. Language in the report accompanying the Senate bill states that the increase received by FDA's Devices and Radiological Health Program for fiscal year 2002 is consistent with agency estimates for bringing medical device application review times within statutory limits. While this statement is accurate according to the budget submitted to congress by the FDA, I have been informed that in testimony to the House Appropriations Committee, FDA officials stated the agency would need more funds than requested in their budget to decrease application review times significantly. I believe it is important for us to work together to resolve this issue, and look forward to working with my colleagues and our House counterparts in the Conference Committee.