Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Sandra M. Bodin, who has recently completed her services as president of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association, ANNA, for her dedication and contributions to nephrology nursing and kidney patients across the country. ANNA's members are registered nurses and health care professionals at all levels of practice. They care for patients who are experiencing or are at risk for kidney disease. ANNA's mission is to advance nephrology nursing practices and positively influence outcomes for patients affected by kidney disease through advocacy, scholarship, and excellence. As a member of ANNA, Ms. Bodin has served as president, vice president, and as a member of the Board of Directors. She received the Ron Brady Memorial Award for Excellence in Volunteer Leadership from ANNA in 2002. As president, Ms. Bodin has inspired nephrology nurses to reach the highest levels of practice and patient care. She is a visionary leader who has implemented a broad range of initiatives that will continue to improve care for patients whose lives depend on dialysis and other kidney replacement treatments. Professionally, Ms. Bodin graduated with a bachelor of arts and a master of arts in nursing from the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, MN. She became a registered nurse in 1977 and a certified nephrology nurse in 1992. After completing work at Miller-Dawn Medical Center and St. Mary's Hospital, Ms. Bodin is currently the lead clinical informatics analyst and application coordinator at the SMDC Health System in Duluth. I honor the efforts of Sandra M. Bodin to promote the care of those suffering from kidney disease and I recognize her achievements as a nurse, patient advocate, and healthcare leader. I commend her on her service to the American Nephrology Nurses' Association and our country. Please join me in honoring Ms. Bodin for her years of vision, leadership, and commitment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to take a quick moment to congratulate Thilmany Papers of Kaukauna, WI, on their 125th year anniversary. From humble beginnings with 18 employees, it has grown to a family of 1,000 employees today. This trusted paper manufacturer, founded on the banks of the Fox River 125 years ago, continues to provide specialty papers with a customer service record unmatched in eastern Wisconsin. One of the names most closely associated with the progress of Kaukauna is Oscar Thilmany. A German immigrant who arrived in the United States in 1866, he tried his hand at a variety of occupations, going from a journalist for a New York newspaper to a company involved in wood preserving. In Thilmany Pulp and Paper Company, Mr. Thilmany found his calling. With that calling came one of the most successful paper companies in all of Wisconsin today. I congratulate Thilmany Papers on their 125th anniversary and wish them much success in the years ahead.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I would like to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Smart Motors, Inc., a family-owned business in Madison, WI. Smart Motors, Inc. began in 1908 when founder O.D. Smart sold his first car, an Apperson-Jackrabbit. A far cry from today's complex automobile business, the operation O.D. began was very straightforward--involving little more than a handshake, a cash payment and a bill of sale. Since those early days, Smart Motors has successfully added services such as finance and insurance as well as a service and parts department to satisfy their customers and to remain competitive in today's competitive car sales industry. Madam President, 2008 marks a milestone for Smart Motors which not even O.D. Smart could have anticipated when he made his first car sale in 1908. But his guiding principle to ``treat people with respect, honesty, equality, and integrity'' has served the company well. I am proud to have such a hardworking and respected family business in Wisconsin. I congratulate their high level of performance over the past 100 years and wish them all the best as they enter their second century of business.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartel 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 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 allow 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. This legislation will not create any private right of action nor require any action by the Attorney General, it will simply give the administration the option to bring an antitrust action against OPEC member nations. Passage of this legislation will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This legislation passed the full Senate by a vote of 70 to 23 last June as an amendment to the 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 to 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 anticonsumer conspiracy. As we consider the causes of rising gas prices--now exceeding the once unthinkable $4 per gallon level, up 74 percent since the beginning of last year--one fact has remained conistent--any move downwards in price ends as soon as OPEC decides to cut production. And whIle the OPEC nations enjoy their riches, the average American consumer suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill. 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. 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. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Mr. President, the suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last few years has made me more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. When I first introduced this legislation in June 2000, the worldwide price of crude oil was $29 per barrel. It has now more than quadrupled. How much longer must consumers wait for us to take action? I believe we need to take action now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2264, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, and that the bill be considered under the following limitations: that no amendments be in order to the bill; that there be 2 hours of debate, with time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today I rise to briefly discuss my amendment No. 4988, which is cosponsored by Senators Collins, Lincoln and Mikulski. In February, I held a revealing hearing in the Aging Committee that uncovered the ways scam artists prey on homeowners in financial and emotional distress. These scams are a consequence of the mortgage crisis that is plaguing our country--and my amendment attacks this growing problem. For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their mortgage payments, it is a great emotional strain. Scam artists prey on an 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. There are three types of prevalent scams. The first is ``phantom help,'' where the ``rescuer'' claims that they will call the homeowner's lender and renegotiate the loan for a fee. Often the homeowner will pay the fee--but the ``rescuer'' will abandon the homeowner without any intervention. The second is a ``rent-to-own'' scheme which is set up to fail. A homeowner will sign over the title of the house and make monthly payments to the scammer in order to help rebuild their credit. However, the monthly payments are extremely high and often result in the homeowner violating the contract and being evicted. Finally, a homeowner may be tricked into unknowingly signing over the title of their house and power of attorney to the scammer and the scammer will then sell the house to a third party. The scam artist might give the homeowner a small amount of money, but often only a fraction of the actual selling price. As you can see, these scams are well crafted and extremely complicated. Catie Doyle, the chief attorney for Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, testified before the Special Committee on Aging, describing the difficulties and problems lawyers are facing when trying to help victims of these scams. One major problem she pointed out was that lawyers have to piece together both State and Federal laws to untangle these scams. The amendment I am offering will remedy Ms. Doyle's concerns. While there are some States that have foreclosure rescue scam laws or are in the process of enacting them, many homeowners still go unprotected from these predators. This legislation will require that all contracts between a foreclosure consultant and a homeowner be in writing and fully disclose the nature of the services and the exact cost. Additionally, the bill prohibits upfront fees from being collected and prohibits a ``consultant'' from obtaining the power of attorney from a homeowner. I have a letter of support from a variety of consumer groups including the Center of Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the National Fair Housing Council, National Consumer Law Center and the National Council of La Raza. The foreclosure crisis is devastating homeowners and communities across the country. Most communities across the country are experiencing both the primary and secondary effects. It is important that we address fraud at the front end of the lending process, as well as for those who face foreclosure. I hope that we can work together to move this amendment forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up amendment No. 4988.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Public Law 48 provides our Nation's response to hunger and malnutrition around the globe. By all accounts we are facing a serious crisis in the months ahead. UNICEF estimates that 6 million Ethiopian children under the age of 5 are at risk of malnutrition and that more than 120,000 have only about a month to live--that is a chilling and disturbing thought; 120,000 children in Ethiopia have only a month to live--and we know this tide is coming. Our moral responsibility, I believe, is clear. There are other critical situations around the globe. The Secretary General of the United Nations is in Burma today, surveying the crisis at hand. These additional resources are needed now and not just for places that are making headlines. Each of the provisions I described--the flood recovery money, the food and drug safety money, the food aid money--cover legitimate needs that deserve to be addressed. They are not pork, they are not excessive, they are rational responses to critical problems. If we fail to address them in this bill, we have done a disservice to the public. I urge my colleagues to weigh these items carefully as they consider their support for the pending amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the pending amendment includes several provisions within my jurisdiction as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee. Under the current unanimous consent agreement, these provisions will be stripped from the bill if we fail to get 60 votes. So I want my colleagues to know exactly what they are voting against if they oppose this amendment. The amendment includes $180 million to help American communities and families in most States recover from recent natural disasters, including floods and tornadoes. Already this year, we witnessed a new record of tornado touchdowns, and flooding in the South, Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and other parts of the country has been devastating. If these funds are dropped from the bill, then we are asking for even greater destruction when other storm events strike later this year. The amendment also includes $275 million for the Food and Drug Administration. I know this is important to the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I suspect it is also a priority for other Members as well. The FDA needs to get its house in order on food and drug safety, and these funds are targeted to do just that. FDA Commissioner Von Eschenbach called me himself to stress the need for this funding. Finally, I wish to talk about food aid. For Pub. L. 480, this amendment provides an additional $500 million over the President's request in the current fiscal year. These additional resources will compensate for skyrocketing food and transportation costs that no one in the administration seems to be acknowledging. I have written two letters in recent weeks, one to the President of the United States and another to the Secretary of State, urging them to support these additional resources. I am still waiting for a response. I am troubled by their silence. I ask unanimous consent these two letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I intend to support this conference report and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. Achieving consensus on farm bills is a notoriously difficult task. For all their hard work on this measure, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and the talented staff who put in long hours to get us to this point. The end result of these hard-fought negotiations is a better safety net for dairy producers in Wisconsin and across the Nation. This bill restores and strengthens the original MILC Program, which was a hard- won effort designed to end regional dairy battles and provide a safety net for small and midsized producers. Since its implementation 6 years ago, MILC has proven to be a critical backstop for thousands of family farmers when milk prices plummet. The ``feed cost adjuster'' included in this bill acknowledges that rising feed costs have become a real challenge for dairy farmers. My colleague and friend Senator Leahy and his staff played a pivotal roll in guiding these provisions and I commend their work. This measure also moves forward in allowing interstate commerce in State-inspected meat products. This has been a significant priority for me. Wisconsin has more State-inspected plants run by Main Street entrepreneurs than any other State in the Nation. They make great products. At a time of further proposed market concentration among major slaughterhouses, we ought to find a way for these smaller entrepreneurs to safely expand their markets and compete across State borders. Doing so will be good for livestock producers, consumers, and Main Street businesses. The nutrition title of this bill is also noteworthy. It incorporates urgently needed updates to the Food Stamp Program, to be known hereafter as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Over the years, low-income households have suffered erosion of benefits due to inflation. The current minimum food stamp benefit has not been raised in over 30 years. This bill raises the minimum benefit and indexes it to inflation. It removes disincentives for retirement and education savings and takes childcare costs into consideration when calculating eligibility. It strengthens support for food banks and will help get more fresh fruits and vegetables into our schools. The conference report includes a compromise on easement valuations under the Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP. Administrative changes to the WRP have diminished its usefulness in Wisconsin and other parts of the Nation, and these changes are intended to correct that problem. This is an area, like several others, where I intend to closely monitor the USDA's implementation of the law I am very pleased that the 2007 farm bill conference report includes the authorization of funds for the Housing Assistance Council. HAC is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the development of affordable rural housing. The Housing Assistance Council offers loans and technical support to local nonprofit entities across the country to develop safe and affordable housing in rural communities. With nearly one-fifth of the Nation's population living in rural communities and 7.5 million of that population living in poverty, decent affordable housing is in short supply. HAC provides the necessary tools to create and develop housing opportunities in areas of our country that are often overlooked. This bill, like any bill, has shortcomings in some people's eyes. Many of us wish more could be done to reform payment limits and target benefits. But at the end of the day this bill is superior to extension of current law and makes some meaningful improvements in critical areas. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have the honor and responsibility of working on a farm bill each year in the form of an annual appropriations bill for the USDA. There are a number of provisions and programs in this measure which are directly tied to discretionary, appropriated funding. Of course, the subcommittee's ability to act on those objectives in the appropriations process is directly tied to the resources made available to the subcommittee. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the executive branch as we try to balance all of these critical health, safety, conservation, nutrition, research, and rural development objectives.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Kwinn, a fellow in his office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the legislative session.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Last year, the World Health Organization reported that 25,000 people died every day from hunger-related causes. Let me repeat that number: 25,000 people who died every day last year. The World Health Organization further reported that of that 25,000 people who died, 18,000 were children. That means that in the time it took me to say that last sentence, a child somewhere in the world has died. It also means before I finish this sentence, another child will have died from hunger. For lack of food, a child dies every 4.8 seconds. As grim as these facts are, things have grown worse, much worse. We are witnessing what could be called a perfect storm of world hunger. The world's supply of food is down, food demand is up, the climate is changing, and crops are failing. Food production resources are shifting every day to energy production, food costs are skyrocketing, and, indeed, entire societies are falling apart as a result. This is not another round of appeals for humanitarian food assistance. There is something new and very troubling occurring. One of the greatest responsibilities of Government is to assure people the basic necessities of life. When that assurance fails, governments fail with it, and an already insecure world moves that much closer to chaos. The most basic need, of course, is the need for food. However, in recent events around the globe, 33 countries have experienced riots and violence because of a failed food supply, including countries in this hemisphere. In the face of hunger, order breaks down, and reason is lost. People are painfully realizing that food production is not keeping up with food demand, and this is a recipe for global disaster. Last month, the Director of the World Food Program, Joesette Sheeran, wrote to President Bush on the immediate need for increased food assistance due to rising food and related costs. I met with Director Sheeran last week and got a firsthand appraisal of the dire situation. Rising food and transportation costs have created a $750 million hole in the World Food Program budget which had assumed that the U.S. contribution this year would include a pending $350 million supplemental request for PL 480. Unless this Congress acts, thousands of people will die, and an increasing number of societies and nations will be at risk. This is indeed a world crisis. Last week, OMB Director Nussle appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and when asked to state whether he thought there was a need to provide food assistance above the President's request of $350 million, he declined. He dodged the question. There is no way to dodge this problem. This is a problem of world security. This is a problem of U.S. security and our place in the world. We must and we will respond. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, I take the issue of international food assistance very seriously. Although the President's supplemental request of $350 million was predictable--after all, he has requested the exact same amount for 3 years in a row--it is totally blind as to what is happening in the world. It is therefore very dangerous. If the United States wants to maintain its role as a world leader, there is no better way to do that than to step forward now, take full account of what is happening, and take meaningful steps to stop the suffering, to stop the hunger, stop the dying. In fact, it is time to be a leader. So I will continue to work for food funding assistance at a level that does not turn a blind eye to the suffering in the world, nor the danger to the world community. So I ask other Senators to join me in stating support to fight this perfect storm of world hunger and to support action to do something about it.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. The legislation I have introduced with Senators Collins and Lincoln attacks the growing problem of foreclosure rescue scams. I held a revealing hearing in the Aging committee that uncovered the ways scam artists prey on homeowners already in financial and emotional distress. These scams are another consequence of the mortgage crisis that is plaguing our country. For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their mortgage payments, it is a great emotion strain. Scam artists prey on an 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. There are three types of prevalent scams. The first is ``phantom help,'' where the ``rescuer'' claims that they call the homeowner's lender and re-negotiate the loan for a fee. Often the homeowner will pay the fee and the ``rescuer,'' will abandon the homeowner without performing any intervention. The second is a ``rent-to-own'' scheme which is set up to fail. A homeowner will sign over the title of the house and make monthly payments to the scammer in order to help rebuild their credit. However, the monthly payments are extremely high and often result in the homeowner violating the contract and being evicted. Finally, a homeowner may be tricked into unknowingly signing over the title of their house and power of attorney to the scammer and the scammer will then sell the house to a third party. The scam artist might give the homeowner a small amount of money, but often only a fraction of the actual selling price. As one can clearly see, these scams are well crafted and extremely complicated. Catie Doyle, the Chief attorney for Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, testified before the Special Committee on Aging, describing the difficulties and problems lawyers are facing when trying to help victims of these scams. One major problem she pointed out was that lawyers have to piece together both state and federal laws to untangle these scams. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act that Senators Collins, Lincoln and I are offering will remedy Ms. Doyle's concerns. While there are some states that have foreclosure rescue scam laws or are in the process of enacting them, many homeowners still go unprotected from these predators. This legislation will require that all contracts between a foreclosure consultant be in writing and fully disclose the nature of the services and the exact amount. Additionally, the bill prohibits up- front fees from being collected and prohibits a ``consultant'' from obtaining the power of attorney from a homeowner. I also have a letter of support from a variety of consumer groups including the Center of Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and the National Council of La Raza. The foreclosure crisis is real. Most communities across the country are experiencing both the primary and secondary effects. It is important that we address fraud at the front end of the lending process, as well, as for those who face foreclosure. I hope that we can work together to move this legislation forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. The legislation I have introduced with Senators Collins and Lincoln attacks the growing problem of foreclosure rescue scams. I held a revealing hearing in the Aging committee that uncovered the ways scam artists prey on homeowners already in financial and emotional distress. These scams are another consequence of the mortgage crisis that is plaguing our country. For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their mortgage payments, it is a great emotion strain. Scam artists prey on an 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. There are three types of prevalent scams. The first is ``phantom help,'' where the ``rescuer'' claims that they call the homeowner's lender and re-negotiate the loan for a fee. Often the homeowner will pay the fee and the ``rescuer,'' will abandon the homeowner without performing any intervention. The second is a ``rent-to-own'' scheme which is set up to fail. A homeowner will sign over the title of the house and make monthly payments to the scammer in order to help rebuild their credit. However, the monthly payments are extremely high and often result in the homeowner violating the contract and being evicted. Finally, a homeowner may be tricked into unknowingly signing over the title of their house and power of attorney to the scammer and the scammer will then sell the house to a third party. The scam artist might give the homeowner a small amount of money, but often only a fraction of the actual selling price. As one can clearly see, these scams are well crafted and extremely complicated. Catie Doyle, the Chief attorney for Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, testified before the Special Committee on Aging, describing the difficulties and problems lawyers are facing when trying to help victims of these scams. One major problem she pointed out was that lawyers have to piece together both state and federal laws to untangle these scams. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act that Senators Collins, Lincoln and I are offering will remedy Ms. Doyle's concerns. While there are some states that have foreclosure rescue scam laws or are in the process of enacting them, many homeowners still go unprotected from these predators. This legislation will require that all contracts between a foreclosure consultant be in writing and fully disclose the nature of the services and the exact amount. Additionally, the bill prohibits up- front fees from being collected and prohibits a ``consultant'' from obtaining the power of attorney from a homeowner. I also have a letter of support from a variety of consumer groups including the Center of Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and the National Council of La Raza. The foreclosure crisis is real. Most communities across the country are experiencing both the primary and secondary effects. It is important that we address fraud at the front end of the lending process, as well, as for those who face foreclosure. I hope that we can work together to move this legislation forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate threw a lifeline to homeowners facing the specter of foreclosure. This legislation includes valuable resources for communities, homeowners, and industry to combat the downturn in the housing market. In my home State of Wisconsin, foreclosures have risen at an alarming rate. Compared to last year, foreclosures have increased by 145 percent. Many of these foreclosed properties were connected with subprime loans with adjusting interest rates. A combination of lax lending standards and the creation of exotic financial products gave lenders the ability to offer people who would not qualify before the chance to own a home. However, there was little concern on whether or not the person or family would be able to sustain home ownership. Because of the irresponsibility of some lenders, families across the country have lost their homes and more are soon to follow if help does not come. One of the provisions included in the Foreclosure Prevention Act increases funds for housing counseling services. These nonprofit housing counseling agencies help homeowners connect to their lenders and renegotiate terms that will allow them to keep their homes. The money is estimated to help close to 500,000 families stay in their homes. Another very important provision provides $4 billion in community development block grant for communities to purchase and redevelop foreclosed-upon properties. This will enable localities to purchase unoccupied properties which drag down neighboring home prices and are easy targets for criminal activity. By rehabilitating these blights, communities will be able to prevent further loss of property value while at the same time providing affordable housing units. Other important provisions include providing a temporary tax refund to help struggling businesses stay afloat and including reforms to the Federal Housing Administration to make it easier for low- and moderate-income families utilize the home ownership programs. The housing crisis has shed light on the complexity and problems in our Nation's lending system. Many homeowners were rushed through the process without truly understanding the terms and conditions of their loans. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will amend the Truth in Lending Act to require lenders to fully disclose the terms and conditions of the loan and to provide the home buyer with the maximum loan payment they will have to make. This simple change will enable future home buyers to make informed decisions regarding their mortgage and enable them to plan accordingly. While this bill is not the final answer to the housing crisis, it is a step in the right direction. There are still many issues that need to be resolved in order to avoid a similar housing and economic downturn. We must consider revising lending standards to protect future home buyers, increasing our affordable rental housing stock and ensuring we create sound fiscal policies that promote the economic well-being of each and every American.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Martinez to introduce the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008. This legislation is a narrowly targeted measure that protects nursing home residents, one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, from losing the right to hold nursing homes accountable in court for negligent and abusive care. The process of admission to a long-term care facility is traumatic for the prospective resident and their family. Often these facilities are a last resort for families and residents, and many times these decisions are arrived at under desperate, and sometimes emergency, circumstances. Even admission to an assisted-living facility by a relatively healthy senior citizen is a stressful and emotional event. Adding to the difficulty, many families face limited options in nursing care when it comes to both geographic location and the level of care required for their loved one. During the admissions process, prospective residents and their families have little choice other than to accept the terms of the admission agreement with no ability to negotiate. Many facilities now require residents, or their responsible family members, to sign contracts that include predispute mandatory arbitration agreements. This means that any dispute between the resident and the facility will automatically be subject to arbitration. In other words, by agreeing to the contract, and before a dispute ever arises, they are unwittingly signing away their constitutional right to have their case heard by an impartial judge or jury. Unlike other uses of arbitration, arbitration in the nursing home context is usually related to health care and often involves cases of abuse and neglect that result in serious injuries or death. While civil court proceedings are generally open to the public, most arbitration requires that all parts of the process be kept confidential. As a result, long term care facilities are not held publicly accountable for their substandard care. Even worse, this potentially lifesaving information may be concealed from current and prospective residents, regulatory agencies, and the public. Another troubling aspect of arbitration clauses in nursing home admissions agreements is that they are often buried in long contracts and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without any opportunity to negotiate. While some facilities may attempt to explain the meaning of the arbitration clause and make it seem voluntary, the focus of the admissions process is on the loved one in need of care and not on these technical legal aspects of the agreement. Family members of prospective residents, whether or not they understand the arbitration provision, feel compelled to sign it in order to ensure that their loved one will be admitted and that their care will not be compromised by their refusal. One of many tragic examples we have learned about is the case of Ella Needham. After being hospitalized with a urinary tract infection, she was taken to a nursing home by her daughter. During the hasty admissions process, her daughter signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Both were unaware that they were signing away their constitutional right to a jury trial. During Ella's stay, the nursing home staff abused her, failed to adequately hydrate her, and did not adequately treat her illness. As a result of this negligence and abuse, Mrs. Needham died. When her daughter sued the home, she discovered that she was not allowed to go to court because of the arbitration agreement. After months of litigation challenging the agreement, the appeals court upheld the requirement to arbitrate. The daughter was forced to settle her claims of abuse and neglect in arbitration. It is important to note that our bill does not preclude arbitration as an option for resolving disputes between nursing home residents and long term care facilities. The legislation simply says that families and prospective residents cannot be forced into arbitration through a nonnegotiable contract prior to the dispute. This will ensure that arbitration is a voluntary forum to resolve these unique disputes that can have far reaching consequences. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Martinez to introduce the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008. This legislation is a narrowly targeted measure that protects nursing home residents, one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, from losing the right to hold nursing homes accountable in court for negligent and abusive care. The process of admission to a long-term care facility is traumatic for the prospective resident and their family. Often these facilities are a last resort for families and residents, and many times these decisions are arrived at under desperate, and sometimes emergency, circumstances. Even admission to an assisted-living facility by a relatively healthy senior citizen is a stressful and emotional event. Adding to the difficulty, many families face limited options in nursing care when it comes to both geographic location and the level of care required for their loved one. During the admissions process, prospective residents and their families have little choice other than to accept the terms of the admission agreement with no ability to negotiate. Many facilities now require residents, or their responsible family members, to sign contracts that include predispute mandatory arbitration agreements. This means that any dispute between the resident and the facility will automatically be subject to arbitration. In other words, by agreeing to the contract, and before a dispute ever arises, they are unwittingly signing away their constitutional right to have their case heard by an impartial judge or jury. Unlike other uses of arbitration, arbitration in the nursing home context is usually related to health care and often involves cases of abuse and neglect that result in serious injuries or death. While civil court proceedings are generally open to the public, most arbitration requires that all parts of the process be kept confidential. As a result, long term care facilities are not held publicly accountable for their substandard care. Even worse, this potentially lifesaving information may be concealed from current and prospective residents, regulatory agencies, and the public. Another troubling aspect of arbitration clauses in nursing home admissions agreements is that they are often buried in long contracts and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without any opportunity to negotiate. While some facilities may attempt to explain the meaning of the arbitration clause and make it seem voluntary, the focus of the admissions process is on the loved one in need of care and not on these technical legal aspects of the agreement. Family members of prospective residents, whether or not they understand the arbitration provision, feel compelled to sign it in order to ensure that their loved one will be admitted and that their care will not be compromised by their refusal. One of many tragic examples we have learned about is the case of Ella Needham. After being hospitalized with a urinary tract infection, she was taken to a nursing home by her daughter. During the hasty admissions process, her daughter signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Both were unaware that they were signing away their constitutional right to a jury trial. During Ella's stay, the nursing home staff abused her, failed to adequately hydrate her, and did not adequately treat her illness. As a result of this negligence and abuse, Mrs. Needham died. When her daughter sued the home, she discovered that she was not allowed to go to court because of the arbitration agreement. After months of litigation challenging the agreement, the appeals court upheld the requirement to arbitrate. The daughter was forced to settle her claims of abuse and neglect in arbitration. It is important to note that our bill does not preclude arbitration as an option for resolving disputes between nursing home residents and long term care facilities. The legislation simply says that families and prospective residents cannot be forced into arbitration through a nonnegotiable contract prior to the dispute. This will ensure that arbitration is a voluntary forum to resolve these unique disputes that can have far reaching consequences. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, many of America's seniors are discovering that their life savings may not be enough to sufficiently provide for their retirement needs. To bridge the gap, some seniors are turning to investments to increase their retirement income and frequently rely on financial advisors to help them invest wisely. Unfortunately, we have learned that seniors are placing their trust in so-called ``senior investment advisors'' who in many cases may not deserve it. More and more, individuals are representing themselves as certified ``senior investment specialists'' when often they have limited or no education and experience in extremely complicated financial matters. It is estimated that there are hundreds of different designations for senior financial advisors that all sound very official, and that there are thousands of unscrupulous individuals marketing themselves out as such ``senior'' specialists. You would be surprised to know that in order to obtain some of them, all it takes is a weekend and as many cracks at an open-book, multiple- choice exam as is needed? It is almost impossible for seniors to tell the difference between the more legitimate titles and those with less rigorous standards. Today, Senator Vitter and I are introducing the Senior Investor Protection Act of 2008 to help ensure there are rules to separate reputable designations, like Certified Financial Planners, from less rigorous designations and clarifications that are meant to confuse and mislead seniors. This bill would encourage states to improve their own rules regulating the use of designations by encouraging them to adopt provisions outlined in the North American Securities Administrators Association's, NASAA, new model rule on the use of senior designations. It would create a grant to help States protect senior investors from unscrupulous individuals who use misleading designations to sell seniors inappropriate financial products. We know that an attorney must go to school for 3 years and pass a State bar exam. A CPA must have a college degree, an additional year of study and must pass a national exam. Neither can offer their professional services without those credentials. Seniors should be able to trust the people who invest their money. They should not be worried that the title after their advisor's name is scarcely more than a marketing ploy, and that it was not earned through sufficiently rigorous financial education or training. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, many of America's seniors are discovering that their life savings may not be enough to sufficiently provide for their retirement needs. To bridge the gap, some seniors are turning to investments to increase their retirement income and frequently rely on financial advisors to help them invest wisely. Unfortunately, we have learned that seniors are placing their trust in so-called ``senior investment advisors'' who in many cases may not deserve it. More and more, individuals are representing themselves as certified ``senior investment specialists'' when often they have limited or no education and experience in extremely complicated financial matters. It is estimated that there are hundreds of different designations for senior financial advisors that all sound very official, and that there are thousands of unscrupulous individuals marketing themselves out as such ``senior'' specialists. You would be surprised to know that in order to obtain some of them, all it takes is a weekend and as many cracks at an open-book, multiple- choice exam as is needed? It is almost impossible for seniors to tell the difference between the more legitimate titles and those with less rigorous standards. Today, Senator Vitter and I are introducing the Senior Investor Protection Act of 2008 to help ensure there are rules to separate reputable designations, like Certified Financial Planners, from less rigorous designations and clarifications that are meant to confuse and mislead seniors. This bill would encourage states to improve their own rules regulating the use of designations by encouraging them to adopt provisions outlined in the North American Securities Administrators Association's, NASAA, new model rule on the use of senior designations. It would create a grant to help States protect senior investors from unscrupulous individuals who use misleading designations to sell seniors inappropriate financial products. We know that an attorney must go to school for 3 years and pass a State bar exam. A CPA must have a college degree, an additional year of study and must pass a national exam. Neither can offer their professional services without those credentials. Seniors should be able to trust the people who invest their money. They should not be worried that the title after their advisor's name is scarcely more than a marketing ploy, and that it was not earned through sufficiently rigorous financial education or training. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Klobuchar be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I speak today in support of my amendment, which would allow for the creation of a comprehensive nationwide system of background checks for long-term care workers. As it now stands, thousands of individuals with a history of abuse or a criminal record are hired every year to work closely with defenseless seniors within our Nation's nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. These individuals evade detection throughout the hiring process, securing jobs that allow them to assault, abuse, and steal from one of our most vulnerable populations. I ask that my colleagues support the amendment I offer today with Senators Domenici, Lincoln, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Clinton, Coleman, Stabenow, Levin, Casey, and Klobuchar, which will allow us to expand the outstanding results of the pilot program nationwide. The amendment proposes that the Senate reserve $160 million over 3 years in a deficit-neutral reserve fund to pay for such an expansion. I hope we can get this amendment passed. I ask for its support. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be supporting this budget resolution and would like to offer a few observations as we go forward. I begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, as well as their talented staff. Plotting a fiscal roadmap is a difficult task. While everyone may not agree on the outcome, I think we all appreciate and commend the dedication and expertise of those who are at the center of the process. Sandwiched as it was, between Super Bowl Sunday and Super Tuesday, the President's budget generated only passing scrutiny beyond the beltway when it was submitted earlier this year. I believe the budget before us improves on that plan substantially. The President put forward a $3 trillion budget with near-record projected deficits and the biggest defense expenditure since World War II. It recycled a number of ill-advised proposals that have been roundly rejected in the past. It put the squeeze on Medicare and Medicaid. And it shortchanged future generations. Congress can and will do better in addressing the challenges Americans face on education, health care, job creation, crime prevention, and high energy costs. I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans alike in developing bills that put the priorities of the American people first. This budget invests in education by increasing resources for education and training programs. It provides for $13 billion in education tax cuts, which will help make college more affordable. It provides a $2 billion Education Reserve Fund to provide for school construction and facility improvements, as well as the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and the extension of education tax credits and deductions. This budget gives a little more hope for American families raising children with disabilities. The President's budget proposed $11.3 billion in funding for special education, which represents the lowest level of support since fiscal year 2002. Last year, over 56,000 Wisconsin students with disabilities did not receive needed services due to chronic underfunding of IDEA, and the President's budget sought to continue this shameful trend. This budget is better for Head Start, a program that prepares low- income children to succeed in school. For every dollar invested in Head Start, Wisconsin reaps $15 in future higher earnings, fewer crimes, and less remedial education. Head Start's funding has not kept pace with inflation or had any cost of living adjustments. In fact, Head Start has been cut by 11 percent since 2002. This budget resolution rejects the President's proposal to eliminate 48 education programs, including vital student financial aid programs like Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and the Perkins Vocational Education Program. The President's proposal would have translated into a loss of $24 million in Federal aid for Wisconsin career and technical education. This budget rejects the over $200 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that the President proposed. Such large cuts to these programs cannot be sustained without our Nation's health care safety net suffering. The result would be fewer people with access to health care, and that is not acceptable. In Wisconsin, this would have meant $1.3 billion in cuts to hospitals over 5 years, decreased enrollment in BadgerCare, and drastic cuts in Medicaid. I am pleased that my home State of Wisconsin will not see President Bush's unrealistic health care funding cuts implemented. This budget resolution provides for more funding for the National Institutes of Health and other health care programs. I believe we must continue to invest in the NIH. This budget anticipates a $4 billion allocation for the Community Development Block Grant Program, an increase of $68 million from last year. The CDBG Program is the largest program that helps cities and states create job opportunities and affordable housing. For Wisconsin, that would translate into approximately $74 million if the increase is enacted. Given the current housing market crisis, a program like CDBG is vital for communities to combat rising foreclosures and create more affordable housing units through rehabilitation of those properties. This budget resolution would allow restoration of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, MEP, at $122 million. MEP helps manufacturers streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times and lower costs, leading to improved efficiency. At a time when we want to increase economic activity and strengthen the manufacturing base of our Nation, the MEP is a fiscally sound investment of Federal resources. I am especially pleased that the budget resolution includes a reserve fund to address child support enforcement. This gives Congress the leeway to repair the damage done under the Deficit Reduction Act which slashed funding for the child support enforcement program. Counties in Wisconsin are feeling the crunch of those cuts--and so are families relying on child support to make ends meet. I am hopeful that Congress will take the opportunity laid out in the resolution to help these families by restoring cuts to the child support program. And finally, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, I would be remiss if I failed to draw some observations about the President's budget and the situation we face on the WIC Program. I would like to insert for the record a letter which I recently sent to the Secretary of Agriculture. WIC provides essential nutrition assistance to pregnant women, infants and children. It is widely recognized for the impact this has on early childhood development. It is a critical discretionary program that is underfunded in the President's budget. Our Nation faces extraordinary challenges. War and terrorism demand resources and attention. An aging population struggles to find the money to educate the next generation while battling increased health care costs. Our economy is struggling to create jobs. We need a budget that does better on all these counts. We need one that sensibly faces these challenges. This budget may not be perfect, but it gets us closer to that goal and therefore earns my support. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 12, 2008, be printed in the Record.