Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, the Senate is voting to release the final $350 billion of funds to the Department of Treasury for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, a move I reluctantly supported. Since Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the public and elected officials have become increasingly frustrated with how the Treasury Department implemented the TARP. The Treasury has implemented little to no oversight, required no transparency from banks receiving funds and has done very little to stem the rising foreclosure problem. A total of 87 financial institutions have received funds from the Treasury Department, including four from Wisconsin. When I asked the Wisconsin banks to show me how they used the Treasury funds they were happy to share how they were combating the financial crisis. For example, Associated Banc-Corp increased their mortgage loan activity by 20 percent. Marshall and Ilsey implemented a 90-day foreclosure moratorium in order to provide assistance to at-risk homeowners. These banks are an example of how the TARP program is injecting credit back into the market. Unfortunately, not every bank is following their example. The current administration has failed to create regulations to monitor the funds and ensure that the taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately to unfreeze the credit markets and assist at-risk homeowners. I was very concerned about extending the incoming administration the additional funds without any assurances or clear plans on how to increase transparency, oversight and lending. Thankfully, the President-elect and his advisors have sent Senator Reid a letter clearly laying out new measures creating transparency, refocusing the funds on foreclosures, and protecting taxpayer investments. As we move forward, I am confident that Congress and the new administration will work together to continue to promote economic stability, preserve homeownership, and protect taxpayer interests.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the Health Care Workforce for an aging America Act, a bill that will address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets. We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only one percent of all physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to double by 2030, and less than one percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults. Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes home care aides and personal care attendants, we know that state training requirements vary enormously, despite the fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional and financial support. Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce.'' It has the support of many national organizations, such as AARP, the American Health Care Association, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, Consumers Union, Family Caregiver Alliance, the National Alliance for Caregiving, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Paraprofessional HealthCare Institute, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, Alliance for Aging Research, and The Catholic Health Association. By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the Health Care Workforce for an aging America Act, a bill that will address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets. We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only one percent of all physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to double by 2030, and less than one percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults. Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes home care aides and personal care attendants, we know that state training requirements vary enormously, despite the fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional and financial support. Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce.'' It has the support of many national organizations, such as AARP, the American Health Care Association, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, Consumers Union, Family Caregiver Alliance, the National Alliance for Caregiving, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Paraprofessional HealthCare Institute, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, Alliance for Aging Research, and The Catholic Health Association. By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with ten of my colleagues, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. This legislation will authorize our Government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on efforts to fix the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our amendment will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. NOPEC will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This legislation passed the full Senate by a vote of 70-23 in June 2007 as an amendment to the 2007 Energy Bill before being stripped from that bill in the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC passed the other body as stand alone legislation in May 2007 by an overwhelming 345-72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this legislation into law and give our Nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy. Throughout 2007 and 2008, crude oil and gasoline prices marched steadily upwards, peaking last summer at over $140 per barrel for crude and well over $4 per gallon for gasoline. In recent months, of course, these prices have plummeted as demand has dropped due to the serious global economic recession. But the recent declines in crude oil and gasoline prices should not fool us--the global oil cartel remains a major force conspiring to raise oil prices to the detriment of American consumers. The recent actions of the OPEC cartel demonstrate the dangers it presents. OPEC is doing everything it can to raise oil prices. On October 24, 2008, OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day, don December 17 OPEC agreed to a further 2.2 million barrels a day production cut. The OPEC cartel makes no secret of its motivation for these production cuts. OPEC President Chaib Khelil put it very simply in an interview published December 23, 2008, ``Without these cuts, I don't think we'd be seeing $43 [per barrel] today, we'd have seen in the $20s. . . . [H]opefully by the third quarter [of 2009] we will see prices rising.'' In another interview in December, Khelil was quoted as saying ``The stronger the decision [to cut production], the faster prices will pick up.'' And if the price of crude oil begins to rise again as a result of these actions by OPEC, there is no doubt that millions of American consumers will feel the pinch every time they visit the gas pump. The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the cost of crude oil. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged such an international price fixing conspiracy, there would no question that it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations. For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in Government has yet tried to take any action. This NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. It is also important to point out that this legislation will not authorize private lawsuits. It only authorizes the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be in the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to whether to take action to enforce NOPEC. Our legislation will not require the Government to bring a legal action against OPEC member nations, and no private party will have the ability to bring such an action. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the executive branch. Our NOPEC legislation will give our law enforcement agencies a tool to employ against the oil cartel--but the decision on whether to use this tool will entirely be up to the Justice Department and, ultimately, the President. They can use this tool as they see fit--to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions, or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other considerations warrant it. NOPEC will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our amendment will overrule one 28 year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. We should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. Government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of supply cutbacks designed to raise price. It will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct. It will also deter additional nations who may today be considering joining OPEC. I urge my colleagues to support our NOPEC legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations. 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, with ten of my colleagues, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. This legislation will authorize our Government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on efforts to fix the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our amendment will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. NOPEC will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This legislation passed the full Senate by a vote of 70-23 in June 2007 as an amendment to the 2007 Energy Bill before being stripped from that bill in the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC passed the other body as stand alone legislation in May 2007 by an overwhelming 345-72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this legislation into law and give our Nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy. Throughout 2007 and 2008, crude oil and gasoline prices marched steadily upwards, peaking last summer at over $140 per barrel for crude and well over $4 per gallon for gasoline. In recent months, of course, these prices have plummeted as demand has dropped due to the serious global economic recession. But the recent declines in crude oil and gasoline prices should not fool us--the global oil cartel remains a major force conspiring to raise oil prices to the detriment of American consumers. The recent actions of the OPEC cartel demonstrate the dangers it presents. OPEC is doing everything it can to raise oil prices. On October 24, 2008, OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day, don December 17 OPEC agreed to a further 2.2 million barrels a day production cut. The OPEC cartel makes no secret of its motivation for these production cuts. OPEC President Chaib Khelil put it very simply in an interview published December 23, 2008, ``Without these cuts, I don't think we'd be seeing $43 [per barrel] today, we'd have seen in the $20s. . . . [H]opefully by the third quarter [of 2009] we will see prices rising.'' In another interview in December, Khelil was quoted as saying ``The stronger the decision [to cut production], the faster prices will pick up.'' And if the price of crude oil begins to rise again as a result of these actions by OPEC, there is no doubt that millions of American consumers will feel the pinch every time they visit the gas pump. The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the cost of crude oil. Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged such an international price fixing conspiracy, there would no question that it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations. For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in Government has yet tried to take any action. This NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. It is also important to point out that this legislation will not authorize private lawsuits. It only authorizes the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be in the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to whether to take action to enforce NOPEC. Our legislation will not require the Government to bring a legal action against OPEC member nations, and no private party will have the ability to bring such an action. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the executive branch. Our NOPEC legislation will give our law enforcement agencies a tool to employ against the oil cartel--but the decision on whether to use this tool will entirely be up to the Justice Department and, ultimately, the President. They can use this tool as they see fit--to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions, or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other considerations warrant it. NOPEC will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our amendment will overrule one 28 year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. We should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. Government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of supply cutbacks designed to raise price. It will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct. It will also deter additional nations who may today be considering joining OPEC. I urge my colleagues to support our NOPEC legislation so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations. 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 Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Reid, and others to introduce the COPS Improvement Act of 2009. This legislation would reauthorize one of the Department of Justice's most successful efforts to fight crime, the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. The success story of the COPS program has been told many times, but it is worth repeating. The goal in 1994 was to put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat. Over the next 5 years, from 1995 to 1999, the COPS Universal Hiring Program distributed nearly $1 billion in grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to hire additional law enforcement officers, allowing us to achieve our goal of 100,000 new officers. Common sense told the American people that having more police walking the beat would lead to less crime, and our experience with the COPS program proved that to be true. This unprecedented effort to put more police officers in our communities coincided with significant reductions in crime during the 1990s. As the number of police rose, we saw 8 consecutive years of reductions in crime. Few programs can claim such a clear record of success. Unfortunately, the success of the COPS program led some to declare victory. Beginning in 2001, funding for the COPS program came under attack. President Bush proposed cuts to the COPS program in each of his budget requests, and his proposed cuts to State and local law enforcement programs has totaled well over $1 billion in recent years. Despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to prevent those cuts, State and local law enforcement funding has consistently declined. Ultimately, the administration succeeded in eliminating the COPS Hiring Program in 2005. These cuts have been felt by the people who work every day to keep our communities safe, and the consequences have been real. Cities across the country have seen the size of their police force reduced. New York has lost thousands of police officers in recent years. Other cities have hundreds of vacancies on their forces. Years of decreases in funding have led to fewer cops on the beat and, unfortunately, increases in violent crime. Therefore, in order to restore the safety of our neighborhoods and communities, it is imperative that we commit ourselves to restoring funding for the COPS program. The COPS Improvement Act of 2009 would authorize $1.15 billion per year over 6 years for the COPS program. It would allocate $600 million per year to hire officers to engage in community policing and as school resource officers. It also authorizes $350 million per year for technology grants. The legislation would also provide some relief to local prosecutors, who have also seen their ranks reduced by the cuts in funding. Specifically, it includes $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. To be sure, some will argue that more than $1 billion is too large a price tag. It is hard to put a price tag on the security of our communities. Investing money in such a successful program with such an important goal is certainly worth the cost. We must also remember that preventing crime from occurring saves taxpayers from the costs associated with victim assistance and incarceration. For that reason, a recent report by the Brookings Institution found ``COPS . . . to be one of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime.'' It is also worth noting the assistance the COPS program can provide to our economy. Few government programs can claim such a direct connection to job creation. The COPS Hiring Program actually puts more people in this country to work. In addition to reducing crime, this investment can serve as a direct injection of money into the American economy. It is difficult to overstate the importance of passing the COPS Improvement Act. Because of the success of the program and the need for a renewed commitment to it, the bill has long had the support of every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officials, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Fraternal Order of Police. These law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to make our communities a safe place to live, and they deserve our full support. 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 Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Reid, and others to introduce the COPS Improvement Act of 2009. This legislation would reauthorize one of the Department of Justice's most successful efforts to fight crime, the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. The success story of the COPS program has been told many times, but it is worth repeating. The goal in 1994 was to put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat. Over the next 5 years, from 1995 to 1999, the COPS Universal Hiring Program distributed nearly $1 billion in grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to hire additional law enforcement officers, allowing us to achieve our goal of 100,000 new officers. Common sense told the American people that having more police walking the beat would lead to less crime, and our experience with the COPS program proved that to be true. This unprecedented effort to put more police officers in our communities coincided with significant reductions in crime during the 1990s. As the number of police rose, we saw 8 consecutive years of reductions in crime. Few programs can claim such a clear record of success. Unfortunately, the success of the COPS program led some to declare victory. Beginning in 2001, funding for the COPS program came under attack. President Bush proposed cuts to the COPS program in each of his budget requests, and his proposed cuts to State and local law enforcement programs has totaled well over $1 billion in recent years. Despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to prevent those cuts, State and local law enforcement funding has consistently declined. Ultimately, the administration succeeded in eliminating the COPS Hiring Program in 2005. These cuts have been felt by the people who work every day to keep our communities safe, and the consequences have been real. Cities across the country have seen the size of their police force reduced. New York has lost thousands of police officers in recent years. Other cities have hundreds of vacancies on their forces. Years of decreases in funding have led to fewer cops on the beat and, unfortunately, increases in violent crime. Therefore, in order to restore the safety of our neighborhoods and communities, it is imperative that we commit ourselves to restoring funding for the COPS program. The COPS Improvement Act of 2009 would authorize $1.15 billion per year over 6 years for the COPS program. It would allocate $600 million per year to hire officers to engage in community policing and as school resource officers. It also authorizes $350 million per year for technology grants. The legislation would also provide some relief to local prosecutors, who have also seen their ranks reduced by the cuts in funding. Specifically, it includes $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. To be sure, some will argue that more than $1 billion is too large a price tag. It is hard to put a price tag on the security of our communities. Investing money in such a successful program with such an important goal is certainly worth the cost. We must also remember that preventing crime from occurring saves taxpayers from the costs associated with victim assistance and incarceration. For that reason, a recent report by the Brookings Institution found ``COPS . . . to be one of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime.'' It is also worth noting the assistance the COPS program can provide to our economy. Few government programs can claim such a direct connection to job creation. The COPS Hiring Program actually puts more people in this country to work. In addition to reducing crime, this investment can serve as a direct injection of money into the American economy. It is difficult to overstate the importance of passing the COPS Improvement Act. Because of the success of the program and the need for a renewed commitment to it, the bill has long had the support of every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officials, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Fraternal Order of Police. These law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to make our communities a safe place to live, and they deserve our full support. 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 Student Credit Card Protection Act of 2009 with my colleague Senator Durbin. This legislation will help prevent college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in school. College students have become the target of credit card companies advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card application. Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000. Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must cosign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy. It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in student loan debt. Paying for housing, health-care and student loans already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge credit card payment on top of all of the other bills can lead to financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt repayment. The current economic situation has exposed many bad habits of both the financial industry and the average consumer. The savings rate of our country has significantly declined over the past decade as consumer spending and borrowing steadily increased. While it is necessary for Congress to implement policies which will allow Americans to save more of their income, it is equally important for consumers to put into practice controlled and prudent spending habits.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit Card Protection Act of 2009 with my colleague Senator Durbin. This legislation will help prevent college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in school. College students have become the target of credit card companies advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card application. Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000. Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must cosign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy. It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in student loan debt. Paying for housing, health-care and student loans already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge credit card payment on top of all of the other bills can lead to financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt repayment. The current economic situation has exposed many bad habits of both the financial industry and the average consumer. The savings rate of our country has significantly declined over the past decade as consumer spending and borrowing steadily increased. While it is necessary for Congress to implement policies which will allow Americans to save more of their income, it is equally important for consumers to put into practice controlled and prudent spending habits.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senators Collins and Lincoln. This legislation, which we introduced last Congress, will make it more difficult for financial predators to take advantage of homeowners in foreclosure. Foreclosure rescue scams are another consequence of the housing crisis that is plaguing the country. Foreclosure filings have been climbing across the country for the past two years and in Wisconsin, filings have risen 22 percent over the past year. Additionally, the Federal Reserve estimates that 2.5 million Americans will be facing foreclosure in 2009. As default rates and foreclosure filings have steadily increased, so have financial scams which prey on homeowners. The Better Business Bureau listed foreclosure rescue scams as one of the top ten financial scams in 2008. For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their payments, it can cause a great deal of emotional stress on the family. Scam artists prey on owner's desperation and give them a false sense of security, claiming they can help ``save their home.'' The types of scams vary, but the end result is that the homeowner is left in a more desperate situation than before. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act aims to prevent these cruel abuses by increasing disclosure and creating strict requirements for a person or entity offering foreclosure-rescue services. The legislation prohibits a ``foreclosure consultant'' from collecting any fee or compensation before completing contracted services, and from obtaining power of attorney from a homeowner. It also requires full disclosure of third-party consideration in the property and creates a 3-day right to cancel the foreclosure-rescue contract. Finally, the legislation creates a federal ``floor'' of protection and allows states without rescue-fraud laws to use these provisions as a way to help scam victims. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act will make it easier for states and the Federal Government to combat these schemes and protect people who are already financially distressed from being made worse off. The past year has exposed the irregularities and inadequacies of our banking regulations. As Congress continues to work on proposals to restore confidence in our financial industry, it is imperative that we put in place new rules and regulations that better protect consumers in order to avoid further economic strain.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 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 by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing along with my colleagues, Senators Vitter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Rockefeller, Dorgan and Klobuchar, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress without dissent. Our legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition and result 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 over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was documented in an October 2006 Government Accountability Office report. That report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers. The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed. These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. Similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in September 2007 which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups--including the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council, American Corn Growers Associations and many more affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress. The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anticompetitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions. No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, to name just two examples. Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses. In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries. It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. 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, 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--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. 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 legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing''. In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in 2007 (S. 2261 in the 110th Congress)--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. Our bill has been endorsed by 34 state attorneys general as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour. The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices. From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they were violating the rule against vertical price fixing. So I know firsthand the dangers to competition and discounting of permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $ 2.1 billion per year at that time. Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even grater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $ 300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $ 750 to $ 1,000 higher for the average family of four every year. And the experience of the last year and a half since the Leegin decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. In December 2008, for example, Sony announced that it would implement a no-discount rule to retailer's selling some of its most in-demand products, including some models of high-end flat screen TVs and digital cameras. On December 4, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that a new business has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller end the discounting of its product. The chilling effect on discounting of such tactics is clear--in one example, the Wall Street Journal reported that Circuit City was forced to raise its retail price for an LG flat screen TV by $ 170 to nearly $ 1,600 after its discount price was discovered on the Internet. Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers. In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason. In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.'' In July 2007, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the marketplace to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers. The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day. In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation that I first proposed in 1997. We have recently completed the most serious business of our democracy--a Presidential election in which millions and millions of citizens demonstrated an enormous amount of enthusiasm. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent experience has shown us that unneeded obstacles are placed preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help America Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in the administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration. However, there is much that still needs to be done. With more and more voters seeking to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. These states constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens of the United States. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. If we continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting. That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to undermine our elections. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous states also open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances. Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a state, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter participation rates. In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended that we move our Federal election day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day. Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours on a Tuesday, generally from 7 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we've seen in recent elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the integrity of future elections and full participation by as many Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a commonsense proposal whose time has come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senators Collins and Lincoln. This legislation, which we introduced last Congress, will make it more difficult for financial predators to take advantage of homeowners in foreclosure. Foreclosure rescue scams are another consequence of the housing crisis that is plaguing the country. Foreclosure filings have been climbing across the country for the past two years and in Wisconsin, filings have risen 22 percent over the past year. Additionally, the Federal Reserve estimates that 2.5 million Americans will be facing foreclosure in 2009. As default rates and foreclosure filings have steadily increased, so have financial scams which prey on homeowners. The Better Business Bureau listed foreclosure rescue scams as one of the top ten financial scams in 2008. For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their payments, it can cause a great deal of emotional stress on the family. Scam artists prey on owner's desperation and give them a false sense of security, claiming they can help ``save their home.'' The types of scams vary, but the end result is that the homeowner is left in a more desperate situation than before. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act aims to prevent these cruel abuses by increasing disclosure and creating strict requirements for a person or entity offering foreclosure-rescue services. The legislation prohibits a ``foreclosure consultant'' from collecting any fee or compensation before completing contracted services, and from obtaining power of attorney from a homeowner. It also requires full disclosure of third-party consideration in the property and creates a 3-day right to cancel the foreclosure-rescue contract. Finally, the legislation creates a federal ``floor'' of protection and allows states without rescue-fraud laws to use these provisions as a way to help scam victims. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act will make it easier for states and the Federal Government to combat these schemes and protect people who are already financially distressed from being made worse off. The past year has exposed the irregularities and inadequacies of our banking regulations. As Congress continues to work on proposals to restore confidence in our financial industry, it is imperative that we put in place new rules and regulations that better protect consumers in order to avoid further economic strain.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 with my colleague Senator Charles Schumer for the purpose of expanding and improving the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. Section 202 provides capital grants to nonprofit community organizations for the development of supportive housing and provision of rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This program supplies housing that includes access to supportive services to allow seniors to remain safely in their homes and age in place. Access to supportive services reduces the occurrence of costly nursing home stays and helps save both seniors and the Federal Government money. There are over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000 Section 202 developments across the country. Unfortunately, the program is far from meeting the growing demand. Approximately 730,000 additional senior housing units will be needed by 2020 in order to address the future housing needs of low-income seniors. There are currently 10 seniors vying for each unit that becomes available, with many seniors waiting years before finding a home. To make matters worse, we are losing older Section 202 properties to developers of high-priced condominiums and apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the program could end up homeless. Congress needs to act now to address the demand for safe, affordable senior housing. Our legislation would promote the construction of new senior housing facilities as well as preserve and improve upon existing facilities. The legislation would also support the conversion of existing facilities into assisted living facilities that provide a wide variety of additional supportive health and social services. Under current law, these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often requiring waivers and special permission from HUD. Finally, our legislation provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors seeking a place to call their own. With this bill, we hope to reduce current impediments and increase the availability of affordable and supportive housing for our Nations most vulnerable seniors. I want to thank the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging as well as the Wisconsin Association of Homes and Services for the Aging for being champions of this legislation and for working with us to develop a comprehensive bill that will help meet the growing need for senior housing in this Nation. Senior citizens deserve to have housing that will help them maintain their independence. I urge that my colleagues will join Senator Schumer and me in our efforts to ensure that older Americans have a place to call home during their golden years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Generics First Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government's Medicare Part D prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, unless a brand-name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a physician. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current coverage gap, or ``donut hole,'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost- saving generic drug alternatives. We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a financial strain on seniors, families, and businesses that are struggling to pay their health care bills. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs totaled $227.5 billion in 2007. People need help now and we must respond by expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 60 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control. Generic drugs that are approved by the FDA must meet the same rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In other words, generics perform the same medicinal purposes as their respective brand-name product. We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of dollars and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is just one part of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 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 by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing along with my colleagues, Senators Vitter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Rockefeller, Dorgan and Klobuchar, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress without dissent. Our legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition and result 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 over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was documented in an October 2006 Government Accountability Office report. That report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers. The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed. These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch. Similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in September 2007 which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups--including the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council, American Corn Growers Associations and many more affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress. The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anticompetitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions. No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, to name just two examples. Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses. In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries. It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. 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, 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--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation that I first proposed in 1997. We have recently completed the most serious business of our democracy--a Presidential election in which millions and millions of citizens demonstrated an enormous amount of enthusiasm. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent experience has shown us that unneeded obstacles are placed preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help America Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in the administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration. However, there is much that still needs to be done. With more and more voters seeking to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. These states constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens of the United States. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. If we continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting. That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to undermine our elections. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous states also open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances. Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a state, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter participation rates. In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended that we move our Federal election day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day. Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours on a Tuesday, generally from 7 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we've seen in recent elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the integrity of future elections and full participation by as many Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a commonsense proposal whose time has come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 with my colleague Senator Charles Schumer for the purpose of expanding and improving the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. Section 202 provides capital grants to nonprofit community organizations for the development of supportive housing and provision of rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This program supplies housing that includes access to supportive services to allow seniors to remain safely in their homes and age in place. Access to supportive services reduces the occurrence of costly nursing home stays and helps save both seniors and the Federal Government money. There are over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000 Section 202 developments across the country. Unfortunately, the program is far from meeting the growing demand. Approximately 730,000 additional senior housing units will be needed by 2020 in order to address the future housing needs of low-income seniors. There are currently 10 seniors vying for each unit that becomes available, with many seniors waiting years before finding a home. To make matters worse, we are losing older Section 202 properties to developers of high-priced condominiums and apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the program could end up homeless. Congress needs to act now to address the demand for safe, affordable senior housing. Our legislation would promote the construction of new senior housing facilities as well as preserve and improve upon existing facilities. The legislation would also support the conversion of existing facilities into assisted living facilities that provide a wide variety of additional supportive health and social services. Under current law, these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often requiring waivers and special permission from HUD. Finally, our legislation provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors seeking a place to call their own. With this bill, we hope to reduce current impediments and increase the availability of affordable and supportive housing for our Nations most vulnerable seniors. I want to thank the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging as well as the Wisconsin Association of Homes and Services for the Aging for being champions of this legislation and for working with us to develop a comprehensive bill that will help meet the growing need for senior housing in this Nation. Senior citizens deserve to have housing that will help them maintain their independence. I urge that my colleagues will join Senator Schumer and me in our efforts to ensure that older Americans have a place to call home during their golden years. 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 legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing''. In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in 2007 (S. 2261 in the 110th Congress)--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. Our bill has been endorsed by 34 state attorneys general as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour. The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices. From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they were violating the rule against vertical price fixing. So I know firsthand the dangers to competition and discounting of permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $ 2.1 billion per year at that time. Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even grater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $ 300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $ 750 to $ 1,000 higher for the average family of four every year. And the experience of the last year and a half since the Leegin decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. In December 2008, for example, Sony announced that it would implement a no-discount rule to retailer's selling some of its most in-demand products, including some models of high-end flat screen TVs and digital cameras. On December 4, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that a new business has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller end the discounting of its product. The chilling effect on discounting of such tactics is clear--in one example, the Wall Street Journal reported that Circuit City was forced to raise its retail price for an LG flat screen TV by $ 170 to nearly $ 1,600 after its discount price was discovered on the Internet. Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers. In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason. In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.'' In July 2007, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the marketplace to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers. The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day. In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 Generics First Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government's Medicare Part D prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, unless a brand-name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a physician. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current coverage gap, or ``donut hole,'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost- saving generic drug alternatives. We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a financial strain on seniors, families, and businesses that are struggling to pay their health care bills. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs totaled $227.5 billion in 2007. People need help now and we must respond by expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 60 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control. Generic drugs that are approved by the FDA must meet the same rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In other words, generics perform the same medicinal purposes as their respective brand-name product. We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of dollars and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is just one part of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is not a proud moment in America's economic history. Our once proud automakers have come to Washington hat in hand asking for a loan with their future, and the future of their workers, at stake. In exchange for a Government loan they are willing to submit to intrusive Government oversight, surrender their executive perks, and give the American taxpayer a stake in any future profits. As a businessman I am stunned that it has come to this. However, I am voting for the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act because I want to see the American auto industry succeed. Under this bill, $15 billion would be provided to GM, Ford and Chrysler in short-term loans that will be paid back with interest. To avoid bankruptcy and emerge as stronger businesses, this plan requires the big three to submit long-term restructuring plans no later than March 31, 2009. If they do not then they will have their loans revoked and be plunged into bankruptcy. Just like other industries that are forced to restructure, the automakers and labor unions will need to make tough choices concerning benefits, wages and pensions to ensure their long-term viability. As a businessman, I am concerned about a Government appointed ``car czar'' who would have oversight and direct involvement over the operations of the automakers. I am worried that no matter how badly managed Detroit has been so far, a Government bureaucrat is unlikely to do a better job. I hope that whoever is found to take this difficult job has the experience, drive, and business savvy to help turn around this struggling industry. In the end I am supporting this bill because of the 46,000 well- paying jobs in Wisconsin that are tied to the auto industry. With the jobs report last week stating that the economy lost 533,000 jobs in November alone, we can't afford to put more Americans out of work. The Government has already begun to help Wall Street, now it is time to help Main Street. I am disappointed that we were not able to agree on a deal tonight. I am hopeful that a bipartisan solution can be reached before it is too late.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the Health Care Workforce for an Aging America Act, a bill that will address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets. We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only 1 percent of all physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to double by 2030, and less than 1 percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults. Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes home health aides and personal care attendants, we know that Federal and State training requirements vary enormously, despite the fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional and financial support. Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce.'' By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon. We have served together on the Special Committee on Aging for since he came to the Senate in 1996. And for the past 4 years, I have had the distinct pleasure of leading the committee alongside him. Our committee has a proud history of bipartisanship. Both the chair and the ranking member have the power to hold hearings, lead investigations, and conduct oversight for the good of older Americans. In every effort, the majority and minority staff involve each other, offering insights and inviting witnesses. The work we have done as leaders of the committee very much reflects the partnership we forged. And I am pleased to have had the opportunity to share many successes with Senator Smith, the most recent of which--a 2-year extension of Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits for refugees and other humanitarian immigrants--was signed into law by President Bush this fall. As the end of our era comes to a close, I wish to applaud Senator Smith for his commendable leadership of the committee, and thank him for the comity he ensured as we worked together to support older workers, improve rural health care and Medicare accountability, and strengthen elder justice. I will be honored to push forth on these issues, which represent just a few of the many priorities we shared, though I will certainly regret the absence of my collaborator, Senator Smith. I wish Senator Smith nothing but success and happiness as he leaves this institution. I, along with millions of older Americans, owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he has done here.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the Health Care Workforce for an Aging America Act, a bill that will address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets. We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only 1 percent of all physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to double by 2030, and less than 1 percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults. Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes home health aides and personal care attendants, we know that Federal and State training requirements vary enormously, despite the fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional and financial support. Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce.'' By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.