Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chairman. interstate 4-r program

Mr. KOHL. Let me take this opportunity to thank both the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators Shelby and Lautenberg, and their staffs, for all their hard work in putting together the transportation appropriations bill. Every Member of the Senate should greatly appreciate the bipartisan and good faith manner in which they tackled the daunting task of meeting our Nation's infrastructure priorities. There are many transportation programs and priorities funded by this bill that are important to my State of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. I would like to take a moment to discuss one particular Great Lakes priority, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC]. Mr. President, since its creation in 1959, SLSDC has provided safe, efficient, and reliable commercial shipping and lockage services through the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The Seaway serves as the gatekeeper for all oceangoing vessel traffic coming to and from the Great Lakes. As such, SLSDC's work is vital to the Great Lakes region, which is responsible for nearly half of America's industrial and agricultural output. That output translates into iron ore for America's steel miles, low-sulphur coal for public utilities and Midwestern export grain for the world market. Simply put, the economic viability of the Great Lakes and the country depends on the efficient operation of the Seaway and SLSDC. Of equal importance are the environmental and safety functions performed through the Seaway. As you know, the administration has proposed that SLSDC be restructured as a performance-based organization [PBO]. I have endorsed this proposal as a critical and innovative step in ensuring the long- term stability of commercial shipping in the Seaway System and throughout the Great Lakes region, and am currently working with other Great Lakes' Senators to prepare the necessary authorizing legislation. Last year, in the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, the Senate included a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the Congress should consider such legislation in the 105th Congress. We are hopeful that the Senate will approve the PBO legislation before the end of this session, although we recognize that there's much work left to be done. As you know, one of the unique features of the PBO initiative is the financing mechanism, which would link SLSDC's funding level to performance--that is, the annual funding level would be calculated according to average tonnage figures through the Seaway. Thus, the PBO initiative authorizing legislation will move SLSDC financing from appropriated funds to an automatic, annual, performance-based payment. The administration's budget request reflected this distinction by not including a request for appropriated funds for SLSDC. I bring this up for discussion simply to avoid confusion as to the appropriations level included in the Senate transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate your fair and unbiased assessment of the PBO initiative, Mr. Chairman. We have every hope of moving the authorizing legislation this session. However, as you and I both know, Congress can be unpredictable. Sometimes we advance ideas quickly, and other times, our work is frustratingly slow. For this reason, I want to reiterate our understanding that if Congress does not enact PBO authorizing legislation for SLSDC by the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the Senate will ensure in conference with the House that SLSDC will be funded.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just wanted to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings and their staff for their hard work on this bill and especially for their efforts in the area of crime prevention. Since the passage of the Crime Act in 1994, I have worked here in the Appropriations Committee and on the Senate floor to provide funding for proven crime prevention programs and to maintain a reasonable balance between law enforcement and prevention. During that time, Senator Gregg and I have had our differences over the need for these programs. This year, however, I was very pleased to work with Senator Gregg on this issue and these discussions resulted in a total of $75 million for a new program that expands upon the Juvenile Justice Act's title V. This program gives local communities broad discretion to fund a variety of crime prevention efforts, while guaranteeing that not all of our anticrime effort goes to law enforcement alone. Consistent with this initiative, the Judiciary Committee reauthorized title V in the juvenile crime bill reported out of committee last week. While this is a large step in the right direction, some small but effective crime prevention efforts that were funded in last year's bill have, unfortunately, been eliminated this year--including the President's Crime Prevention Council. I look forward to working with Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings to address these problems as we move forward with this bill. In closing, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their support of significant crime prevention funding. In communities across the Nation, their efforts will make a difference in the lives of millions of young people.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their comments on this important issue. I am reassured by their interest in this matter. jefferson parish communications system

Mr. KOHL. I understand that the FTC has proposed to weaken the standard for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' advertising from ``all to virtually all'' U.S. content to ``substantially all'' U.S. content. The proposal sets forth two alternative safe harbors for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' claims: 75 percent U.S. content--U.S. manufacturing costs represent 75 percent of the total manufacturing costs for the product and the product was last substantially transformed in the U.S. or; two level substantial transformation--The product was last substantially transformed in the United States and all significant inputs were last substantially transformed in the United States. I also understand that the new proposed guidelines would have the effect of allowing products made with 25 percent or more foreign labor and foreign materials to be labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.'' In some cases, the FTC's proposed guidelines would allow products made entirely with foreign materials and foreign components to be labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.'' The ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label, a time-honored symbol of American pride and craftsmanship, is an extremely valuable asset to manufacturers. Allowing this label to be applied to goods not wholly made in America will encourage companies to ship U.S. jobs overseas because they can take advantage of the cheaper labor markets while promoting their products as ``Made in the U.S.A.'' For products not wholly made in the U.S.A., companies already can make a truthful claim about whatever U.S. content their products have--e.g., ``Made in the U.S.A. of 75 percent U.S. component parts'' or ``Assembled in the U.S.A. from imported and domestic parts''. However, if manufacturers seek to voluntarily promote their products as ``Made in the U.S.A.'' they must be honest in that promotion and only apply the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label to products wholly made in the U.S.A.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the people of the Milwaukee Vet Center. For 17 years now these Wisconsinites have counseled and assisted veterans during the difficult period of readjustment from frontline to homefront. Fighting a war is a terrible experience, inflicting physical and psychological wounds which few veterans can fully heal on their own. The Milwaukee Vet Center has helped over 8,800 veterans of American missions in their attempts to overcome these psychological battle scars. Originally established for Vietnam veterans, its doors are now open to veterans of every major American engagement since World War II. This center stands as a prime example of success in our Nation's social services. A division of the Department of Veterans Affairs, it provides comprehensive and personalized counseling, not only to male and female veterans but also to their spouses and children. Although the center's responsibilities include 91,513 eligible veterans in 13 eastern Wisconsin counties, its workers strive to make personal contact with as many veterans as possible. Its outreach programs engage veterans in the context of their communities, granting a fuller knowledge of where each individual stands geographically, psychologically and socially. Working with other specialized organizations, the center provides individualized services for native American and African-American veterans, among others. Those who enter the Milwaukee Vet Center seeking help know they are dealing with some of America's most experienced social workers. Collectively, the center's employees possess decades of experience in the fields of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems, vocational rehabilitation, women's health treatment, and psychiatric treatment. They have worked in the public and private sectors, schools, hospitals, even disaster areas. The Vet Center provides hands-on field experience for students in local colleges and universities such as the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Area Technical College, and the Stratton Business Institute. By sharing their wealth of experience, the Vet Center's professionals enrich these students' education and more importantly guide them on the path to a fulfilling career in public service. I commend the heroic efforts of these public servants, and personally thank them for playing an important part in making Wisconsin great.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to address a critical need in our society, the need for affordable health care for the terminally ill. Today, in the fiscal year 1998 Treasury and general government appropriations bill, a bill which I otherwise supported, I believe we did a disservice to those suffering from the HIV virus, cancer, and other terminal diseases. We failed to authorize a pilot program which might have severely reduced the cost of essential, and at this time very expensive, drugs which significantly prolong patients' lives and enhance their quality of life. The Treasury and general government appropriations bill includes a repeal of section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. This so-called cooperative purchasing provision would have allowed local governments to purchase items from the schedule of prices established by the Government Services Administration [GSA] for the Federal Government. On the face of it, this provision had some appeal, as a measure that might save money for local governments. However, many argued that section 1555 would bankrupt small businesses, increase all prices in the long term, and undermine the reliability and safety provided by a local manufacturing and distribution network. The concern about section 1555 was widespread and profound and, therefore, I supported a repeal of the provision. However, I favored one exception, which would address a critical need and give us a chance to observe the effects of section 1555. I favored the authorization of a carefully defined pilot program in cooperative purchasing of drugs for terminally ill patients. Public hospitals in cities and counties throughout the United States are desperate to reduce the cost of health care for the terminally ill. Last year, the Nation's largest city, county, and State hospitals lost an average of $86 million per year by providing care to uninsured an underinsured patients. To avoid closure or bankruptcy, many of these institutions have to limit their more expensive services, such as the new generation of life-prolonging AIDS drugs. At the same time, many AIDS patients are deprived of adequate care because they cannot afford $15,000 per year for AIDS drug therapy. State and local programs must purchase these drugs for them. The Department of Health and Human Services has agreed to coordinate a pilot program which would enable State and local governments to benefit from Federal Government rates when they purchase drugs for life-threatening conditions. Recent studies suggest that this could save public hospitals more than 25 percent of their current expenditures on these essential drugs. These savings would, in turn, make it possible for hospitals to help more Americans battling against terminal illness. I think we all agree that the terminally ill and those who serve them deserve our support in making their medical care more affordable and available. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the concern of veterans' groups and others that this kind of program could eventually result in higher health care costs for all. Therefore, this pilot program would be narrowly focused and of finite length. I encourage concerned groups to contribute suggestions as we define those program constraints. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this pilot program may fail. If so, we will have learned from our error. If the program works, however, if it truly brings down the costs of life-prolonging and potentially life-saving drugs, could we live with ourselves if we refused to give it a chance?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last Thursday Senator Hatch and myself, along with Senators Leahy and Durbin, offered an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that would delink Federal judicial pay raises from those of the Congress and senior level executive branch officials. Our amendment, which was accepted without objection, will allow judges' salaries to be adjusted automatically on an annual basis. I am pleased that it is part of the measure that will pass the Senate today. For too many years, Congress has refused to take the political heat for accepting pay raises, and held judicial salaries hostage in the process. This congressional scheme of hiding behind judicial robes has created a tremendous financial gulf between Federal judges and the lawyers who come before them. The likelihood that this salary gap will only get worse is driving some of our best jurists from the Federal bench and making it increasingly difficult to attract top-quality replacements. Such a talent drain threatens the quality of American justice at a time when our already overburdened courts need our best and most experienced legal minds. The numbers offer their own warning. Between 1960 and 1970, only three Federal judges resigned. But since 1980 more than 50 judges have left the bench early, many citing inadequate compensation as the reason. Indeed, a study several years ago by the American Bar Association estimated that more than one-fourth of the Nation's Federal judges may quit their jobs. While this exodus grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract the best and the brightest to Federal judicial service. Judicial candidates can clearly see the ink fading on their checkbooks. Many say they want to serve the public, but they just can't afford it. The solution to this problem is simple, and by delinking judicial pay raises, the Senate today takes an important step toward ensuring that this situation will not be repeated. I am hopeful and optimistic that we can retain this provision when we conference the measure with the House. Mr. President, we in Congress have taken the opportunity to show our commitment to fairness. We have recognized the mistake Congress made 20 years ago when it tied its own salary increases to those of Federal judges. This backdoor way of securing congressional pay raises hasn't worked. But by this amendment we have freed the hostages, the Nation's Federal judges, and helped to ensure the continued high quality of America's judicial system.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. 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, we have accepted amendment No. 940, but I do want to mention that we may need to fine-tune it in conference. The reason is that, as currently drafted, the proposal is somewhat ambiguous. And for that reason, the Justice Department has told us that it has serious concerns about the amendment. Now, I read the language to apply prospectively; that is, to people who are subsequently convicted of a crime--but not to those employees who were convicted years ago--or at any time prior to when this proposal becomes law. And I also believe that parts (a)(1) and (a)(2) should be read conjunctively; that is, to apply to government employees who are convicted of drug-related bribery--but not to employees who are convicted of either bribery or drug-related crimes alone. We have talked to Senator Coverdell's staff and they are willing to work on the language of the amendment to make this clear and I am optimistic that we can write it to everybody's satisfaction in conference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my detailee from the Justice Department, Joel Christie, have floor privileges during the debate on the nomination later today of Joel Klein, and for any other Judiciary Committee matter on the floor this Congress.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its immediate adoption.

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. The amendment has been cleared on our side also.

Mr. KOHL. We have no objection to their being set aside.

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. We have no objection on our side. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. We have no objection. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. We will lay the amendment aside until Monday.

Mr. KOHL. I ask to have the amendment laid aside until Monday.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.