Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senate's passage of a resolution I submitted earlier this week with the cochair of the Senate Boating Caucus, Senator Burr. Our resolution recognizes July 1 as National Boating Day, and more importantly, recognizes the importance of boating and fishing to our economy and our constituents. I believe this resolution comes at a critical time. Like so many other industries, the boating industry has suffered during these tough economic times. Last summer's high gas prices and this past year's credit crisis has put many manufacturers and their dealers at risk. And that endangers the hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that the boating industry provides. Wisconsin is a microcosm of boating and fishing in America. With access to the Great Lakes and thousands of acres of internal lakes and rivers, Wisconsin is home to more than 1.4 million anglers and a destination for both boating and fishing related tourists. Beyond the tourism jobs generated by recreational boating, the boating industry has a strong foothold in my State. Whether it's Mercury Marine in Fond du Lac to SkipperLiner in La Crosse, boating manufacturers, suppliers, dealers and marinas account for thousands of jobs. In 2001, approximately $1 billion was spent in the State on fishing related activities, according to a study conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recreational boating is an equal partner to the sport fishing industry, with more than $526 million being spent in 2003 on powerboats and accessories. The importance of boating, however, extends well beyond its economic impact. More than 59 million people spend time each year on our rivers, lakes, and coastlines. These are families spending time together and they are people learning more about the natural resources our country has to offer. The true impact of boating is immeasurable. And that is why I am so pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the resolution passed earlier today. I hope that on July 1--National Boating Day--both Members of Congress and the American people will reflect on the true importance of boating to our country.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cardin to introduce the state Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2009. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective state court interpreter programs. This would help to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no interpreter certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding state court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 20 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the state Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In Ohio, a woman was wrongly placed on suicide watch after an unqualified interpreter mistranslated her words. In February 2007 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system, and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue. This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over 5 years, for a state Court Interpreter Grant Program. The bill does not merely send Federal dollars to States to pay for court interpreters. It will provide much needed ``seed money'' for States to start or bolster their court interpreter programs to recruit, train, test, and certify court interpreters. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's court interpreter program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, 5 years later, it has certified 48 interpreters. Most of those are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and German. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Russian, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only 5 years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cardin to introduce the state Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2009. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective state court interpreter programs. This would help to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency. States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no interpreter certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding state court interpreter programs. Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters. Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 20 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million. The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the state Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed. Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In Ohio, a woman was wrongly placed on suicide watch after an unqualified interpreter mistranslated her words. In February 2007 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system, and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue. This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over 5 years, for a state Court Interpreter Grant Program. The bill does not merely send Federal dollars to States to pay for court interpreters. It will provide much needed ``seed money'' for States to start or bolster their court interpreter programs to recruit, train, test, and certify court interpreters. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home. Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's court interpreter program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, 5 years later, it has certified 48 interpreters. Most of those are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and German. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Russian, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only 5 years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance. This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, Harriet Ann Jacobs, a writer, abolitionist, and former slave wrote, ``No pen can give an adequate description of the all-pervading corruption produced by slavery.'' Just as no pen can describe how horrible the effects of slavery are, no words will be able to express adequately our apology. But it is long past time we tried the impossible task of apologizing for this terrible period in our history. Slavery was a deeply shameful period in our history, and the effects on our country and our people can still be seen today. African Americans still suffer from the years of slavery and institutional racism of the Jim Crow years. This resolution will not erase the damage of those years, but it is a necessary step if we are ever to heal the wounds that remain. The early growth of our country--including the building of this very Capitol Building--would have been impossible without the labor and skills of African-American slaves. Our success as a nation was built on their backs, and at an awful price. Today, finally, with the passage of S. Con. Res. 26, we recognize their sacrifice and apologize for what they suffered. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act. This legislation extends a critical component of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, set to expire on June 22, which encourages participation in the Antitrust Division's leniency program. As a result, the Justice Department will be able to continue to detect, investigate and aggressively prosecute price-fixing cartels which harm consumers. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has long considered criminal cartel enforcement a top priority, and its Corporate Leniency Policy is an important tool in that enforcement. Criminal antitrust offenses are generally conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets of customers. The Leniency Policy creates incentives for corporations to report their unlawful cartel conduct to the Division, by offering the possibility of immunity from criminal charges to the first-reporting corporation, as long as there is full cooperation. For more than 15 years, this policy has allowed the Division to uncover cartels affecting billions of dollars worth of commerce here in the U.S., which has led to prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences. An important part of the Division's Leniency Policy, added by the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, limits the civil liability of leniency participants to the actual damages caused by that company--rather than triple the damages caused by the entire conspiracy, which is the typical in civil antitrust lawsuits. This removed a significant disincentive to participation in the leniency program--the concern that, despite immunity from criminal charges, a participating corporation might still be on the hook for treble damages in any future antitrust lawsuits. Maintaining strong incentives to make use of the Leniency Policy provides important benefits to the victims of antitrust offenses, often consumers who paid artificially high prices. It makes it more likely that criminal antitrust violations will be reported and, as a result, consumers will be able to identify and recover their losses from paying illegally inflated prices. The policy also requires participants to cooperate with plaintiffs in any follow-on civil lawsuits, which makes it more likely that the plaintiff consumers will be able to build strong cases against all members of the conspiracy. Since the passage of ACPERA, the Antitrust Division has uncovered a number of significant cartel cases through its leniency program, including the air cargo investigation, which so far has yielded over a billion dollars in criminal fines. In that investigation, several airlines pled guilty to conspiring to fix international air cargo rates and international passenger fuel surcharges. Not only were criminal fines levied, but one high-ranking executive pled guilty and agreed to serve eight months in prison. In fiscal year 2004, before the passage of ACPERA, criminal antitrust fines totaled $350 million. Criminal antitrust fines in fiscal year 2009 have already surpassed $960 million. Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division, has stated that the damages limitation has made its Corporate Leniency Program ``even more effective'' at detecting and prosecuting cartels. ACPERA's damages limitation is set to expire later this month, so we must act quickly to extend it. Otherwise, the Justice Department will lose an important tool that it uses to investigate and prosecute criminal cartel activity. This bill extends that provision for 1 year. Over the next year, we will fully review ACPERA, and consider potential changes to make it more effective. Mr. President, 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 Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act. This legislation extends a critical component of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, set to expire on June 22, which encourages participation in the Antitrust Division's leniency program. As a result, the Justice Department will be able to continue to detect, investigate and aggressively prosecute price-fixing cartels which harm consumers. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has long considered criminal cartel enforcement a top priority, and its Corporate Leniency Policy is an important tool in that enforcement. Criminal antitrust offenses are generally conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets of customers. The Leniency Policy creates incentives for corporations to report their unlawful cartel conduct to the Division, by offering the possibility of immunity from criminal charges to the first-reporting corporation, as long as there is full cooperation. For more than 15 years, this policy has allowed the Division to uncover cartels affecting billions of dollars worth of commerce here in the U.S., which has led to prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences. An important part of the Division's Leniency Policy, added by the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, limits the civil liability of leniency participants to the actual damages caused by that company--rather than triple the damages caused by the entire conspiracy, which is the typical in civil antitrust lawsuits. This removed a significant disincentive to participation in the leniency program--the concern that, despite immunity from criminal charges, a participating corporation might still be on the hook for treble damages in any future antitrust lawsuits. Maintaining strong incentives to make use of the Leniency Policy provides important benefits to the victims of antitrust offenses, often consumers who paid artificially high prices. It makes it more likely that criminal antitrust violations will be reported and, as a result, consumers will be able to identify and recover their losses from paying illegally inflated prices. The policy also requires participants to cooperate with plaintiffs in any follow-on civil lawsuits, which makes it more likely that the plaintiff consumers will be able to build strong cases against all members of the conspiracy. Since the passage of ACPERA, the Antitrust Division has uncovered a number of significant cartel cases through its leniency program, including the air cargo investigation, which so far has yielded over a billion dollars in criminal fines. In that investigation, several airlines pled guilty to conspiring to fix international air cargo rates and international passenger fuel surcharges. Not only were criminal fines levied, but one high-ranking executive pled guilty and agreed to serve eight months in prison. In fiscal year 2004, before the passage of ACPERA, criminal antitrust fines totaled $350 million. Criminal antitrust fines in fiscal year 2009 have already surpassed $960 million. Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division, has stated that the damages limitation has made its Corporate Leniency Program ``even more effective'' at detecting and prosecuting cartels. ACPERA's damages limitation is set to expire later this month, so we must act quickly to extend it. Otherwise, the Justice Department will lose an important tool that it uses to investigate and prosecute criminal cartel activity. This bill extends that provision for 1 year. Over the next year, we will fully review ACPERA, and consider potential changes to make it more effective. Mr. President, 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 express my support for the Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2009. With America aging at an unprecedented rate, and with the high and rising costs of caring for a loved one, the financing of long-term care must be addressed if we are going to get health care costs under control. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I wish to also thank my colleague Senator Wyden for his leadership on addressing the financing of long- term care. We all know that long-term care is expensive. The cost of an average nursing home is nearly $75,000 per year. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, most Americans do not realize that neither Medicare nor Medicaid will cover these costs unless their household savings are nearly eliminated. States share the responsibility of providing Medicaid funding for long-term care with the federal government, and are also looking for ways to reduce their expenses. As of today, 43 states are in the process of launching ``Partnership'' programs, which provide incentives to consumers who purchase private long-term care insurance. But in the rush to ease the burden of long-term care costs on state budgets, we fear that some key concerns are being overlooked. We have a duty to make sure these policies, which may span many decades, are financially viable. Several long-term care insurance providers have applied for TARP funds in recent months, raising questions about their solvency. In addition, many insurance companies have been raising their policyholders' monthly premiums, which can be devastating for older persons who are living on a fixed income. Many Americans living on modest or fixed incomes, who have held policies for many years, have seen premium rates double when a company encounters financial difficulties. For such consumers, the choices are stark and very limited: they can either dig deeper and pay the increased premiums, or let their policy lapse, leaving them with no coverage if they ever need care. Last year, I was joined by several Senate and House colleagues in releasing a GAO report on whether adequate consumer protections are in place for those who purchase long-term care insurance. The report found that rate increases are common throughout the industry, and that consumer protections are uneven. While some states have adopted requirements that keep rates relatively stable, some have not, leaving consumers unprotected. The Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act takes several important steps to ensure that premiums increases are kept at a minimum, insurance agents receive adequate training, and that complaints and appeals are addressed in a timely manner. We should also make it easier for consumers to accurately compare policies from different insurance carriers, particularly with regard to what benefits are covered and whether the plan offers inflation protection. States should also have to approve materials used to market Partnership policies. The Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act will institute many of these needed improvements. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Confidence in Long- Term Care Insurance Act of 2009. It is estimated that two out of three Americans who reach the age of 65 will need long-term care services and supports at some point to assist them with day-to-day activities, and enable them to maintain a high-quality, independent life. Long-term care insurance is an appropriate product for many who wish to plan for a secure retirement. But we must guarantee that consumers have adequate information and protections, and that premiums won't skyrocket down the road. I thank Senator Wyden for his commitment to ensuring we address the important issue of long-term care financing. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the legislation we are introducing today. Mr. President, 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 express my support for the Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2009. With America aging at an unprecedented rate, and with the high and rising costs of caring for a loved one, the financing of long-term care must be addressed if we are going to get health care costs under control. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I wish to also thank my colleague Senator Wyden for his leadership on addressing the financing of long- term care. We all know that long-term care is expensive. The cost of an average nursing home is nearly $75,000 per year. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, most Americans do not realize that neither Medicare nor Medicaid will cover these costs unless their household savings are nearly eliminated. States share the responsibility of providing Medicaid funding for long-term care with the federal government, and are also looking for ways to reduce their expenses. As of today, 43 states are in the process of launching ``Partnership'' programs, which provide incentives to consumers who purchase private long-term care insurance. But in the rush to ease the burden of long-term care costs on state budgets, we fear that some key concerns are being overlooked. We have a duty to make sure these policies, which may span many decades, are financially viable. Several long-term care insurance providers have applied for TARP funds in recent months, raising questions about their solvency. In addition, many insurance companies have been raising their policyholders' monthly premiums, which can be devastating for older persons who are living on a fixed income. Many Americans living on modest or fixed incomes, who have held policies for many years, have seen premium rates double when a company encounters financial difficulties. For such consumers, the choices are stark and very limited: they can either dig deeper and pay the increased premiums, or let their policy lapse, leaving them with no coverage if they ever need care. Last year, I was joined by several Senate and House colleagues in releasing a GAO report on whether adequate consumer protections are in place for those who purchase long-term care insurance. The report found that rate increases are common throughout the industry, and that consumer protections are uneven. While some states have adopted requirements that keep rates relatively stable, some have not, leaving consumers unprotected. The Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act takes several important steps to ensure that premiums increases are kept at a minimum, insurance agents receive adequate training, and that complaints and appeals are addressed in a timely manner. We should also make it easier for consumers to accurately compare policies from different insurance carriers, particularly with regard to what benefits are covered and whether the plan offers inflation protection. States should also have to approve materials used to market Partnership policies. The Confidence in Long-Term Care Insurance Act will institute many of these needed improvements. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Confidence in Long- Term Care Insurance Act of 2009. It is estimated that two out of three Americans who reach the age of 65 will need long-term care services and supports at some point to assist them with day-to-day activities, and enable them to maintain a high-quality, independent life. Long-term care insurance is an appropriate product for many who wish to plan for a secure retirement. But we must guarantee that consumers have adequate information and protections, and that premiums won't skyrocket down the road. I thank Senator Wyden for his commitment to ensuring we address the important issue of long-term care financing. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the legislation we are introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an agreement we have reached with Senator Rockefeller regarding today's planned consideration of the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act. Before describing our agreement, I would like to say a few words about this legislation. We believe this legislation is essential to restoring competition to the Nation's crucial freight railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad of vital goods--everything from coal used to generate electricity to grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades, the freight railroads have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by almost all other parts of our economy because of their outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions. Our legislation is designed to eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This bipartisan legislation has 11 cosponsors, including members of both the Judiciary Committee and Commerce Committee, and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous 14-to-0 vote in March. The railroad industry's obsolete antitrust exemptions resulted in higher prices to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry in recent years has resulted in only four class I railroads providing nearly 90 percent of the Nation's freight rail transportation. Three decades ago, by contrast, there were 42 class I railroads. A 2006 GAO report found shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' The ill-advised effects of these consolidations are exemplified by the high prices paid by captive shippers; namely, industries served by only one railroad. A recent study by the Consumer Federation of America found that rail shipping rates for captive shippers are $3 billion higher than they would be if the market were competitive. These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, results in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, reduces earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail, and raises food prices paid by consumers. Repeal of the railroad antitrust exemption is supported by the attorneys general of 20 States and a wide range of consumer organizations and leading industry trade organizations, including the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council, the National Farmers Union, the American Corn Growers Association, and the National Industrial Transportation League, as well as many more. Once their outmoded antitrust exemptions are removed, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anticompetitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anticompetitive conduct and to seek redress for their grievances. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, and to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anticompetitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. That is why I am so pleased by the agreement that I have reached today with Senator Rockefeller. He has agreed to include this necessary repeal of the railroads' unwarranted antitrust exemption in his comprehensive bill to reform the freight rail industry and the Surface Transportation Board when that bill is introduced in the coming weeks. Senator Rockefeller has also agreed that his comprehensive rail reform bill will address a specific railroad practice that is of great concern to me--a practice known as paper barriers. He has pledged that his legislation will give the STB enhanced power to address this issue so that shippers are not denied the benefit of competition in relation to these arrangements. With this agreement, we have avoided a potentially divisive floor debate and we have the solid support of the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for repealing the antitrust exemption and addressing paper barriers. I thank my friend from West Virginia for his compromise as well as his support for the need to reform the freight rail system in the United States in the interest of all parties, including rail shippers and consumers. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Leahy to introduce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act of 2009. As the problem of cigarette trafficking continues to worsen, we must provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to crack down on cigarette trafficking. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. Each day we delay passage of this important legislation, terrorists and criminals raise more money, States lose significant amounts of tax revenue, and kids have easy access to tobacco products over the internet. The cost to Americans is not merely financial. Tobacco smuggling also poses a significant threat to innocent people around the world. It has developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, for example, earned $1.5 million between 1996 and 2000 by engaging in tobacco trafficking in the U.S. Al Qaeda and Hamas have also generated significant revenue from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes. That money is often raised right here in the U.S. and it is then funneled back to these international terrorist groups. Cutting off financial support to terrorist groups is an integral part of the protecting this country against future attacks. We can no longer continue to let terrorist organizations exploit weaknesses in our tobacco laws to generate significant amounts of money. The cost of doing nothing is too great. This is not a minor problem. Cigarette smuggling is a multibillion dollar a year phenomenon, and it is getting worse. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. In 2005, that number swelled to 452. Today there are more than 400 open cases. The number of cases alone, however, does not sufficiently put this problem into perspective. The amount of money involved is truly astonishing. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, costs States billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that we lose $5 billion in state revenues due to illegal tobacco sales. As lost tobacco tax revenue lines the pockets of criminals and terrorist groups, states are being forced to college tuition and restrict access to other public programs. Tobacco smuggling may provide some with cheap access to cigarettes, but those cheap cigarettes are coming at a significant cost to the rest of us. According to the Government Accountability Office, each year, cigarette trafficking investigations are growing more and more complex, and take longer to resolve. More people are selling cigarettes illegally, and they are getting better at it. As these cases get tougher to solve, we owe it to law enforcement officials to do our part to lend a helping hand. The PACT Act enhances BATFE's authority to enter premises to investigate and enforce cigarette trafficking laws, and increasing penalties for violations. Unless these existing laws are strengthened, traffickers will continue to operate with near impunity. Just as important, though, we must provide law enforcement with new enforcement tools--tools that enable them to combat the cigarette smugglers of the 21st century. The internet represents one of those new obstacles to enforcement. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then employing the services of common carriers and the U.S. Postal Service to deliver their illegal products around the country. Just a few years ago, there were less than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, we estimate that approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the internet. Without new and innovative enforcement methods, law enforcement will not be able to effectively address the growing challenges facing them today. The PACT Act sets out to do just that by cutting off the delivery. A significant part of this problem involves the shipment of contraband cigarettes through the U.S. Postal Service, USPS. This bill would cut off access to the USPS by making tobacco products non- mailable. We would treat cigarettes just like we treat alcohol, making it illegal to ship them through the U.S. mails and cutting off a large portion of the delivery system. It also employs a novel approach, one being used in some of our States today, to combat illegal sales of tobacco over the internet. Specifically, it will allow the Attorney General, in collaboration with State and local law enforcement, to create a list of companies that are illegally selling tobacco products. That list will then be distributed to legitimate businesses whose services are indispensable to illegal internet vendors--common carriers. Once a common carrier knows which customers are breaking the law, this bill will ensure that they take appropriate action to prevent their companies from being exploited by terrorists and other criminals. It is important to point out that this bill has been carefully negotiated with the common carriers, including UPS, to ensure that it does not place any unreasonable burdens on these businesses. In recognition of UPS and other common carriers' agreements to not deliver cigarettes to individual consumers on a nationwide basis, pursuant to agreements with the State of New York, we have exempted them from the bill provided this agreement remains in effect. In addition to these important law enforcement needs, it is important to mention another aspect of this legislation that is equally important. One of the primary ways children get access to cigarettes today is on the internet and through the mails. The PACT Act now contains a strong age verification section that will ensure that online vendors are not selling cigarettes to our children. This provision would prohibit the sale of tobacco products to children, and it would also require sellers to use a method of shipment that requires a signature and photo ID check upon delivery. Most States already have similar laws on the books, and this would simply make sure that we have a national standard to ensure that the internet is not being used to evade similar ID checks we require at our grocery and convenience stores. The recognition that this is a significant problem, along with the commonsense approach taken in the PACT Act to combat it, has brought together a coalition of strange bedfellows. The legislation has not just garnered the support of the law enforcement community, including the National Association of Attorneys General, and public health advocates, such as the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. It also has the strong support of tobacco companies like Altria. These groups, who sometimes find themselves on opposite sides of these issues, all agree that this is an issue begging to be addressed. They all recognize the urgent need to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to combat a very serious threat to our security and protect public health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Leahy to introduce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act of 2009. As the problem of cigarette trafficking continues to worsen, we must provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to crack down on cigarette trafficking. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. Each day we delay passage of this important legislation, terrorists and criminals raise more money, States lose significant amounts of tax revenue, and kids have easy access to tobacco products over the internet. The cost to Americans is not merely financial. Tobacco smuggling also poses a significant threat to innocent people around the world. It has developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, for example, earned $1.5 million between 1996 and 2000 by engaging in tobacco trafficking in the U.S. Al Qaeda and Hamas have also generated significant revenue from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes. That money is often raised right here in the U.S. and it is then funneled back to these international terrorist groups. Cutting off financial support to terrorist groups is an integral part of the protecting this country against future attacks. We can no longer continue to let terrorist organizations exploit weaknesses in our tobacco laws to generate significant amounts of money. The cost of doing nothing is too great. This is not a minor problem. Cigarette smuggling is a multibillion dollar a year phenomenon, and it is getting worse. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. In 2005, that number swelled to 452. Today there are more than 400 open cases. The number of cases alone, however, does not sufficiently put this problem into perspective. The amount of money involved is truly astonishing. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, costs States billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that we lose $5 billion in state revenues due to illegal tobacco sales. As lost tobacco tax revenue lines the pockets of criminals and terrorist groups, states are being forced to college tuition and restrict access to other public programs. Tobacco smuggling may provide some with cheap access to cigarettes, but those cheap cigarettes are coming at a significant cost to the rest of us. According to the Government Accountability Office, each year, cigarette trafficking investigations are growing more and more complex, and take longer to resolve. More people are selling cigarettes illegally, and they are getting better at it. As these cases get tougher to solve, we owe it to law enforcement officials to do our part to lend a helping hand. The PACT Act enhances BATFE's authority to enter premises to investigate and enforce cigarette trafficking laws, and increasing penalties for violations. Unless these existing laws are strengthened, traffickers will continue to operate with near impunity. Just as important, though, we must provide law enforcement with new enforcement tools--tools that enable them to combat the cigarette smugglers of the 21st century. The internet represents one of those new obstacles to enforcement. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then employing the services of common carriers and the U.S. Postal Service to deliver their illegal products around the country. Just a few years ago, there were less than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, we estimate that approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the internet. Without new and innovative enforcement methods, law enforcement will not be able to effectively address the growing challenges facing them today. The PACT Act sets out to do just that by cutting off the delivery. A significant part of this problem involves the shipment of contraband cigarettes through the U.S. Postal Service, USPS. This bill would cut off access to the USPS by making tobacco products non- mailable. We would treat cigarettes just like we treat alcohol, making it illegal to ship them through the U.S. mails and cutting off a large portion of the delivery system. It also employs a novel approach, one being used in some of our States today, to combat illegal sales of tobacco over the internet. Specifically, it will allow the Attorney General, in collaboration with State and local law enforcement, to create a list of companies that are illegally selling tobacco products. That list will then be distributed to legitimate businesses whose services are indispensable to illegal internet vendors--common carriers. Once a common carrier knows which customers are breaking the law, this bill will ensure that they take appropriate action to prevent their companies from being exploited by terrorists and other criminals. It is important to point out that this bill has been carefully negotiated with the common carriers, including UPS, to ensure that it does not place any unreasonable burdens on these businesses. In recognition of UPS and other common carriers' agreements to not deliver cigarettes to individual consumers on a nationwide basis, pursuant to agreements with the State of New York, we have exempted them from the bill provided this agreement remains in effect. In addition to these important law enforcement needs, it is important to mention another aspect of this legislation that is equally important. One of the primary ways children get access to cigarettes today is on the internet and through the mails. The PACT Act now contains a strong age verification section that will ensure that online vendors are not selling cigarettes to our children. This provision would prohibit the sale of tobacco products to children, and it would also require sellers to use a method of shipment that requires a signature and photo ID check upon delivery. Most States already have similar laws on the books, and this would simply make sure that we have a national standard to ensure that the internet is not being used to evade similar ID checks we require at our grocery and convenience stores. The recognition that this is a significant problem, along with the commonsense approach taken in the PACT Act to combat it, has brought together a coalition of strange bedfellows. The legislation has not just garnered the support of the law enforcement community, including the National Association of Attorneys General, and public health advocates, such as the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. It also has the strong support of tobacco companies like Altria. These groups, who sometimes find themselves on opposite sides of these issues, all agree that this is an issue begging to be addressed. They all recognize the urgent need to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to combat a very serious threat to our security and protect public health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate remembers a moment in history when the United States failed to provide refuge to slightly more than 900 individuals fleeing religious and racial persecution in Nazi Germany. S. Res. 111 acknowledges the 70th anniversary of the date, June 6, 1939, when the M.S. St. Louis, a German ocean liner, started its return voyage to Europe with nearly all of its original passengers. Later, over 250 of those individuals would perish in the Holocaust. The story starts on May 13, 1939, when the M.S. St. Louis sailed from Hamburg, Germany, to Havana, Cuba with 937 passengers, mostly Jewish refugees, searching for freedom and safety. State-supported antiSemitism including violent pogroms, expulsion from public schools and services, and arrest and imprisonment solely because of Jewish heritage forced those passengers to leave their homes. When the M.S. St. Louis arrived in Havana, the Cuban Government allowed only 28 passengers to disembark. Corruption and political maneuvering within the Cuban Government invalidated the transit visas of the other passengers. Before returning to Europe, the ship sailed toward Miami hoping for a solution. The ship sailed so close to Florida that the passengers could see the lights of Miami. One survivor remembers his father commenting that ``Florida's golden shores, so near, might as well be 4,000 miles away for all the good it did them.'' The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924 strictly limited the number of immigrants admitted to the United States each year and in 1939 the waiting list for German-Austrian immigration was several years long. While the press and citizens were largely sympathetic to the passengers' plight, no extraordinary measures were taken to permit the refugees to enter the United States. The passengers were told that they must ``await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas.'' On June 6, 1939, the M.S. St. Louis sailed back to Europe with nearly all of its original passengers. The passengers obtained refuge in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. World War II started 3 months later and those countries, with the exception of Great Britain, fell to Nazi occupation. Two hundred and fifty-four of those passengers died during the Holocaust and many others suffered under Nazi persecution and in concentration camps. S. Res. 111 acknowledges the 70th anniversary of the return voyage of the M.S. St. Louis and honors the memory of those passengers including the 254 who died during the Holocaust. The St. Louis is only one tragedy out of millions from that time, but seventy years later, it still haunts us as a nation and deserves recognition.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Connecticut and the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd. As the chairman is aware, I have offered an amendment to S. 896, the helping families save their homes, which would require mortgage servicing companies to issue warnings to homeowners about foreclosure rescue scams. Foreclosure rescue scams have become more prevalent as more and more homeowners lose their homes. These financial predators claim to help desperate homeowners and often, walk away with their home and money. The issuing of a simple disclosure from a mortgage servicing company would make it easier for people to identify the difference between scam artists and legitimate help. The disclosure requirement would provide the homeowner with a HUD hotline identifying the counseling agencies in their area and would give them a phone number in order to contact their lender. A simple disclosure will provide homeowners with relevant contact information so they can better understand their options and avoid scam artists. I hope that I can work with the chairman on this important issue as the Banking Committee moves forward with future legislation on financial reform.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee for all his help and engaging in this colloquy.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I acknowledge the outstanding achievements of the Astronautics Corporation of America which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary in Milwaukee on May 31, 2009. I want to share a bit of background with my colleagues about the Astronautics Corporation and recognize their vital contribution to Milwaukee and the Nation. The Astronautics Corporation of America was established in 1959 when Nate Zelazo and a small team of experienced engineers started their own company devoted to advanced technology in the aerospace field. Since then, the company has become a trailblazer in developing and manufacturing military and commercial electronics. Their products are used throughout the world in a wide range of sea, ground, and aerospace applications. Today, more than 100,000 aircraft use Astronautics flight instruments, displays, computers, and components. The company keeps jobs in Wisconsin while building technology systems that keep our service men and women safe. It is with great pride that I wish the Astronautics Corporation of America congratulations on their 50th anniversary and continued success as innovators.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on April 17, Wisconsin bid farewell to a pioneer in politics. Midge Miller was a remarkable woman, and I want to take a few moments to honor her service, her activism, and her extraordinary spirit. Midge arrived in Madison, WI, in 1957. By that time in her young life she had served as a missionary in Japan after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had lost her husband to a tragic shipwreck, and was about to begin graduate school in Madison. She was also the mother of four young children. She went on to serve as assistant dean of UW's College of Letters and Science, one of Wisconsin's most effective State senators, a 9-year member of the Democratic National Committee, and a founder of the National Women's Political Caucus. Along the way she found time to volunteer for a host of causes, all of them aimed at advancing peace and equality and giving hope to people who too often found themselves outside the ``system.'' She defended civil liberties, expanded civil rights, protected the environment, and fought for consumers. Always mindful of her many roles, Midge could all at once be a remarkable leader, active constituent, and a responsible steward of everything, and to everyone, she touched. When the phone rang and her gentle voice came through on the other end, no matter on what subject or cause, listening, learning, and being compelled to action were the only obvious responses when she was finished with you. From my first days in office right up until recently, Midge was always there to advise me but also hold me accountable. She showed her loved ones in her family and those she came to love in her community what it meant, in the words of Gandhi, to be the change we want to see in the world. Countless people, especially women in our State, credit her for the opportunities and inspiration she provided that helped them reach their potential. She was an extraordinary mentor, motivator, and mother. She was tireless and tenacious. She never lost her zeal to make the world a better place. Throughout her life, Midge Miller exemplified public service, social responsibility, goodness, and grace. For all those reasons and many more, I am honored to have known Midge Miller and send my heartfelt condolences to her family.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 990.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I speak today in support of an amendment that would protect older Americans from unscrupulous financial advisers. In these tough economic times, seniors are discovering that their life savings have lost so much value they may not be able to fund their retirement. Desperate for advice, they look toward investment advisers for strategies to ride out this economic storm. Unfortunately, we have learned that some are placing their trust in so-called ``senior investment advisers,'' who in many cases are one step above scam artists. These individuals often have limited or no education or training though they claim titles with legitimate-sounding names. We know that an attorney must go to school for 3 years and pass a State bar exam. A CPA must have a college degree, an additional year of study, and must pass a national exam. Neither can offer their professional services without those credentials. Seniors should be able to trust the people who invest their money. They should not be worried that the title after their adviser's name is scarcely more than a marketing ploy. This amendment would create a new grant program to assist States in their efforts to protect seniors from misleading financial adviser designations by encouraging them to adopt provisions outlined in the North American Securities Administrators Association's and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' model rules on the use of senior designations. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, seventy two years ago the M.S. St. Louis, a German ocean liner, sailed from Hamburg, Germany to Havana, Cuba with 937 passengers, mostly Jewish refugees searching for the freedom and safety of the American dream. Those passengers left their homes because of state supported anti-semitism including violent pogroms, expulsion from public schools and service, and arrest and imprisonment solely because of Jewish heritage. Some passengers were released from prisons at Buchenwald and Dachau only because they were immigrating out of the country. With their freedom and safety stripped away by Nazi persecution, these refugees sailed for Cuba, a way station to wait for entry visas to the U.S. When the M.S. St. Louis arrived in Cuba, only 28 passengers were allowed to disembark. Corruption and political maneuvering within the Cuban government invalidated the transit visas of the other passengers. Those individuals waited with great hope for a remedy that would provide refuge far from Nazi persecution. Before returning to Europe, the ship sailed towards Miami in hopes of a solution. The ship sailed so close to Florida that the passengers could see the lights of Miami. One survivor remembers his father commenting that ``Florida's golden shores, so near, might as well be 4,000 miles away for all the good it did them.'' The US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924 strictly limited the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. each year and in 1939 the waiting list for German-Austrian immigration was several years long. While the press was largely sympathetic to the plight of the passengers of the M.S. St. Louis, no extraordinary measures were taken to permit the refugees to enter the United States. The passengers were told that they must ``await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas''. On June 6 the M.S. St. Louis sailed back to Europe with nearly all of its original passengers. Refuge for the passengers was eventually obtained in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. World War II started three months later and those countries, with the exception of Great Britain, fell to Nazi occupation. Two hundred and fifty-four of those passengers died during the Holocaust and many others suffered under Nazi persecution and in concentration camps. During this week when we remember the Holocaust, it is appropriate and right to acknowledge the voyage of the M.S. St. Louis and the lives and the dreams of those refugees who made a trip towards freedom only to be returned to Europe. This Senate Resolution acknowledges the 70th anniversary of the voyage of the M.S. St. Louis and honors the memory of those passengers, 254 of who died during the Holocaust. This resolution also provides an opportunity for public officials and educators to reflect on this historic event and lessons that are relevant to current and future generations.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I honor the School Sisters of St. Francis which will be celebrating 135 years of service in Milwaukee on April 24, 2009. I want to share with my colleagues a bit of background on the Sisters and call attention to the pivotal role they play in Milwaukee's faith community. The School Sisters of St. Francis was founded in 1874 in Wisconsin by three courageous women Emma Franziska, Mother Alexia; Paulina Schmid, Mother Alfons; and Helena Seiter, Sister Clara. A year prior, these women left Germany and came to the United States to fulfill their dream of founding a Franciscan religious order. Their central mission was to help their fellow immigrants and address the need for service within the Church. Their dedication to helping others has culminated in a network of Sisters who always strive to respond to the times they are in, and to the needs of the people whose lives are affected by their inspiring work. Today that spirit lives on with Sisters, associates, staff, and volunteers in India, Europe, Latin America and the United States. The Sisters continually demonstrate their compassion for others and have often been recognized for their pioneering spirit and innovation in education, health care, pastoral ministry, and the arts. Their outstanding work promotes human dignity, justice, and outreach to the poor. It is with great pride that the people of Wisconsin wish the School Sisters of St. Francis a happy 135th anniversary and continued success as they carry out their mission in Wisconsin and across the globe.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I wish today to express my support for the Elder Justice Act of 2009. As in previous years, I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I wish to thank my colleague, Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Snowe for their leadership to address the often-hidden scourge of elder abuse. For years, Congress has failed to take concrete action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must change. The Elder Justice Act takes several important steps to help protect our vulnerable elders. First, it boosts funding for the long-term care ombudsman program, which is the chief source of advocacy for individuals who live in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The bill would advance the understanding of how to prosecute and address elder abuse by providing funds to focus on and develop the forensics of elder abuse. In addition, it elevates the importance of elder justice issues by creating a coordinating council of Federal agencies that will make policy recommendations and submit reports to Congress every 2 years. The legislation provides funding for adult protective services programs and improves training and working conditions for long-term care professionals. We must also act to prevent abuse of our elders whenever and wherever possible. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act, which I recently reintroduced with my colleague, Senator Collins, would do much to prevent physical, emotional and financial abuse by providing States with the resources they need to significantly improve background check screening processes for vulnerable populations, including frail elders and individuals with disabilities. We know from the results of a 3-year pilot program that thousands of predators can be eliminated from the long-term care workforce that serves elders simply by improving and tightening screening standards. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support both the Elder Justice Act and the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act. Thousands of individuals with a history of substantiated abuse or a criminal record are hired every year to work closely with exposed and defenseless seniors within our Nation's nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Because the current system of State-based background checks is haphazard, inconsistent, and full of gaping holes, predators can evade detection throughout the hiring process, securing jobs that allow them to assault, abuse, and steal from defenseless elders. I thank Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Snowe for their commitment to the cause of elder justice. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the legislation we are introducing today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I wish today to express my support for the Elder Justice Act of 2009. As in previous years, I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I wish to thank my colleague, Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Snowe for their leadership to address the often-hidden scourge of elder abuse. For years, Congress has failed to take concrete action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must change. The Elder Justice Act takes several important steps to help protect our vulnerable elders. First, it boosts funding for the long-term care ombudsman program, which is the chief source of advocacy for individuals who live in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The bill would advance the understanding of how to prosecute and address elder abuse by providing funds to focus on and develop the forensics of elder abuse. In addition, it elevates the importance of elder justice issues by creating a coordinating council of Federal agencies that will make policy recommendations and submit reports to Congress every 2 years. The legislation provides funding for adult protective services programs and improves training and working conditions for long-term care professionals. We must also act to prevent abuse of our elders whenever and wherever possible. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act, which I recently reintroduced with my colleague, Senator Collins, would do much to prevent physical, emotional and financial abuse by providing States with the resources they need to significantly improve background check screening processes for vulnerable populations, including frail elders and individuals with disabilities. We know from the results of a 3-year pilot program that thousands of predators can be eliminated from the long-term care workforce that serves elders simply by improving and tightening screening standards. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support both the Elder Justice Act and the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act. Thousands of individuals with a history of substantiated abuse or a criminal record are hired every year to work closely with exposed and defenseless seniors within our Nation's nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Because the current system of State-based background checks is haphazard, inconsistent, and full of gaping holes, predators can evade detection throughout the hiring process, securing jobs that allow them to assault, abuse, and steal from defenseless elders. I thank Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Snowe for their commitment to the cause of elder justice. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the legislation we are introducing today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Leahy and Senator Specter to introduce the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, JJDPA, has played a key role in successful state and local efforts to reduce juvenile crime and get kids back on track after they have had run-ins with the law. This legislation will reauthorize and make significant improvements to these important programs. A successful strategy to combat juvenile crime consists of a large dose of prevention and intervention programs. Juvenile justice programs have proven time and time again that they help prevent crime, strengthen communities, and rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The JJDPA has always had a dual focus: prevention and rehabilitation. The JJDPA has successfully focused on intervening in a positive manner to work with those teens that have fallen through the cracks and have had a few scrapes with the law. Many of the juveniles who come into contact with the justice system are not violent offenders or gang members. Rather, they are young people who have made mistakes and deserve a second chance to succeed and lead healthy lives. In fact, seventy percent of youth in detention are held for nonviolent charges. Research has shown that youth who come into contact with the justice system can be rehabilitated, and we have an obligation to support successful programs that do just that. While putting young people on the right path after they have had run- ins with the law is tremendously important, we would all prefer to keep them from getting into trouble in the first place. Title V, of course, is the only federal program that is dedicated exclusively to juvenile crime prevention. Evidence-based prevention programs are proven to reduce crime. Because each child prevented from engaging in repeat criminal offenses can save the community $1.7 to $3.4 million, reducing crime actually saves money. Research has shown that every dollar spent on effective, evidence based programs can yield up to $13 in cost savings. Since the last reauthorization in 2002, research and experience have revealed that there is still room for improvement. That is why we are proposing a number of changes to the Act. Under Title II, the existing JJDPA requires states to comply with certain core requirements that are designed to protect and assist in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. This legislation makes improvements to four of the core requirements--removal of juveniles from adult jails, preventing contact between juvenile offenders and adult inmates, the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, and disproportionate minority contact, DMC. The legislation would amend the jail removal and sight and sound requirements to ensure that juveniles charged as adults are not placed in an adult facility or allowed to have contact with adult inmates unless a court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so. Research has shown that juveniles who spend time in adult jails are more likely to reoffend. Therefore, it is critical that we get judges more involved in this process to ensure that it is in everyone's best interest, but particularly the juvenile's best interest, to place that young person in an adult facility. This measure would also place important limitations on the valid court order exception to the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. Under the current JJDPA, courts can order status offenders to be placed in secure detention with minimal process and no limit on duration. We seek to change both of these. This bill would place a 7 day limit on the amount of time a status offender can spend in a secure facility, and ensure that juvenile status offenders have significant procedural protections. In addition, the legislation will push states to take concrete steps to identify the causes of disproportionate minority contact and take meaningful steps to achieve concrete reductions. The bill also focuses a great deal of attention on improving cooperation between the states and the Federal Government in the area of juvenile justice. It directs the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice to conduct additional research. It seeks to strengthen the amount of training and technical assistance provided by the Federal Government, particularly workforce training for those people who work directly with juveniles at every stage of the juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act would improve treatment of juveniles in two important respects. It seeks to end the use of improper isolation and dangerous practices, and it encourages the use of best practices and alternatives to detention. This measure also places a greater focus on mental health and substance abuse treatment for juveniles who come into contact, or are at risk of coming into contact, with the juvenile justice system. Research has shown that the prevalence of mental disorders among youth in juvenile justice systems is two to three times higher than among youth who have not had run-ins with the law. Taking meaningful steps to provide adequate mental health screening and treatment for these juveniles is a critical part of getting them on the right track, and needs to be a part of federal, state and local efforts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the key to success is adequate support. Funding for juvenile justice programs has been on a downward spiral for the last 8 years. Just 6 years ago, these programs received approximately $556 million, with more than $94 million for the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program and nearly $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program. Last year, the Bush administration requested just $250 million for all juvenile justice programs, which represents more than a 50 percent cut from fiscal year 2002. Local communities do a great job of leveraging this funding to accomplish great things, but we cannot say with a straight face that this level is sufficient. We look forward to working with President Obama to ensure that these vital programs once again receive the adequate funding they deserve. Therefore, we are seeking to authorize increased funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The bill will authorize more than $272 million for Title V and nearly $200 million for Title II in fiscal year 2009. Then, funding for each title will increase by $50 million each subsequent fiscal year. These programs are in desperate need of adequate funding. It is money well spent, and this increase in authorized funding will demonstrate Congressional support for these critical programs. In addition to increased funding for traditional JJDPA programs, we have created a new incentive grant program under the Act. This program authorizes another $60 million per year to help local communities to supplement efforts under the Act, and in some cases go above and beyond what is required of them. Specifically, this funding will support evidence based and promising prevention and intervention programs. It will enhance workforce training, which will improve the treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles who come into contact with the system. Lastly, a significant portion of this funding will be dedicated to mental health screening and treatment of juveniles who have come into contact, or are at risk of coming into contact, with the justice system. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is an incredibly successful program. The fact that it is cost efficient is important. But the most important thing is that it is effective. It is effective in reaching the kids it is designed to help. The evidence based prevention programs it funds are able to touch the lives of at-risk youth and steer them away from a life of crime. For those who have unfortunately already had run-ins with law enforcement, its intervention and treatment programs have successfully helped countless kids get their lives back on the right track and become productive members of society. It is beyond dispute that these proven programs improve and strengthen young people, as well as their families and their communities. For that reason, we urge our colleagues to support this important measure to reauthorize and improve these programs.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Leahy and Senator Specter to introduce the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, JJDPA, has played a key role in successful state and local efforts to reduce juvenile crime and get kids back on track after they have had run-ins with the law. This legislation will reauthorize and make significant improvements to these important programs. A successful strategy to combat juvenile crime consists of a large dose of prevention and intervention programs. Juvenile justice programs have proven time and time again that they help prevent crime, strengthen communities, and rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The JJDPA has always had a dual focus: prevention and rehabilitation. The JJDPA has successfully focused on intervening in a positive manner to work with those teens that have fallen through the cracks and have had a few scrapes with the law. Many of the juveniles who come into contact with the justice system are not violent offenders or gang members. Rather, they are young people who have made mistakes and deserve a second chance to succeed and lead healthy lives. In fact, seventy percent of youth in detention are held for nonviolent charges. Research has shown that youth who come into contact with the justice system can be rehabilitated, and we have an obligation to support successful programs that do just that. While putting young people on the right path after they have had run- ins with the law is tremendously important, we would all prefer to keep them from getting into trouble in the first place. Title V, of course, is the only federal program that is dedicated exclusively to juvenile crime prevention. Evidence-based prevention programs are proven to reduce crime. Because each child prevented from engaging in repeat criminal offenses can save the community $1.7 to $3.4 million, reducing crime actually saves money. Research has shown that every dollar spent on effective, evidence based programs can yield up to $13 in cost savings. Since the last reauthorization in 2002, research and experience have revealed that there is still room for improvement. That is why we are proposing a number of changes to the Act. Under Title II, the existing JJDPA requires states to comply with certain core requirements that are designed to protect and assist in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. This legislation makes improvements to four of the core requirements--removal of juveniles from adult jails, preventing contact between juvenile offenders and adult inmates, the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, and disproportionate minority contact, DMC. The legislation would amend the jail removal and sight and sound requirements to ensure that juveniles charged as adults are not placed in an adult facility or allowed to have contact with adult inmates unless a court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so. Research has shown that juveniles who spend time in adult jails are more likely to reoffend. Therefore, it is critical that we get judges more involved in this process to ensure that it is in everyone's best interest, but particularly the juvenile's best interest, to place that young person in an adult facility. This measure would also place important limitations on the valid court order exception to the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. Under the current JJDPA, courts can order status offenders to be placed in secure detention with minimal process and no limit on duration. We seek to change both of these. This bill would place a 7 day limit on the amount of time a status offender can spend in a secure facility, and ensure that juvenile status offenders have significant procedural protections. In addition, the legislation will push states to take concrete steps to identify the causes of disproportionate minority contact and take meaningful steps to achieve concrete reductions. The bill also focuses a great deal of attention on improving cooperation between the states and the Federal Government in the area of juvenile justice. It directs the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice to conduct additional research. It seeks to strengthen the amount of training and technical assistance provided by the Federal Government, particularly workforce training for those people who work directly with juveniles at every stage of the juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act would improve treatment of juveniles in two important respects. It seeks to end the use of improper isolation and dangerous practices, and it encourages the use of best practices and alternatives to detention. This measure also places a greater focus on mental health and substance abuse treatment for juveniles who come into contact, or are at risk of coming into contact, with the juvenile justice system. Research has shown that the prevalence of mental disorders among youth in juvenile justice systems is two to three times higher than among youth who have not had run-ins with the law. Taking meaningful steps to provide adequate mental health screening and treatment for these juveniles is a critical part of getting them on the right track, and needs to be a part of federal, state and local efforts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the key to success is adequate support. Funding for juvenile justice programs has been on a downward spiral for the last 8 years. Just 6 years ago, these programs received approximately $556 million, with more than $94 million for the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program and nearly $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program. Last year, the Bush administration requested just $250 million for all juvenile justice programs, which represents more than a 50 percent cut from fiscal year 2002. Local communities do a great job of leveraging this funding to accomplish great things, but we cannot say with a straight face that this level is sufficient. We look forward to working with President Obama to ensure that these vital programs once again receive the adequate funding they deserve. Therefore, we are seeking to authorize increased funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The bill will authorize more than $272 million for Title V and nearly $200 million for Title II in fiscal year 2009. Then, funding for each title will increase by $50 million each subsequent fiscal year. These programs are in desperate need of adequate funding. It is money well spent, and this increase in authorized funding will demonstrate Congressional support for these critical programs. In addition to increased funding for traditional JJDPA programs, we have created a new incentive grant program under the Act. This program authorizes another $60 million per year to help local communities to supplement efforts under the Act, and in some cases go above and beyond what is required of them. Specifically, this funding will support evidence based and promising prevention and intervention programs. It will enhance workforce training, which will improve the treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles who come into contact with the system. Lastly, a significant portion of this funding will be dedicated to mental health screening and treatment of juveniles who have come into contact, or are at risk of coming into contact, with the justice system. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is an incredibly successful program. The fact that it is cost efficient is important. But the most important thing is that it is effective. It is effective in reaching the kids it is designed to help. The evidence based prevention programs it funds are able to touch the lives of at-risk youth and steer them away from a life of crime. For those who have unfortunately already had run-ins with law enforcement, its intervention and treatment programs have successfully helped countless kids get their lives back on the right track and become productive members of society. It is beyond dispute that these proven programs improve and strengthen young people, as well as their families and their communities. For that reason, we urge our colleagues to support this important measure to reauthorize and improve these programs.