Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4197.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment to S. Con. Res. 70 requests the Senate to take action to stop the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable individuals who reside in the Nation's 17,000 nursing homes and receive services in thousands of other long-term care facilities. It proposes that the Senate reserve $160 million over 3 years in a deficit-neutral reserve fund to pay for a nationwide expansion of a successful background check pilot program enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003. This seven-State pilot program has already prevented more than 7,200 people with records of substantiated abuse or a violent criminal record from working with and preying upon frail elders and individuals with disabilities. The amendment's reserve fund would be triggered only if the Finance Committee reported out legislation or submitted a conference report providing for a nationwide expansion of the MMA pilot program. If this occurred, the reserve fund amount would be offset by the Finance Committee. Today, abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable individuals within long-term care facilities result in costly consequences or elderly or disabled victims, their families, and society as a whole. Numerous reports issued by GAO, the HHS Office of Inspector General, and State governments have recommended that comprehensive background checks should be a routine part of preemployment screening for all workers serving vulnerable populations, including frail elders and individuals with disabilities. A nationwide system of background checks for long-term care workers would offer greater protection to seniors across the country in a wide variety of settings s--including the home. The policy would decrease not only physical abuse but also financial exploitation of vulnerable home-dwelling seniors, and would produce significant crime prevention savings. The policy has broad-based support from outside groups, including the National Association of State Attorneys General, the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, the Elder Justice Coalition, the nursing home industry, and eldercare advocates in States and communities across the country.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to recognize and congratulate Ms. Victoria Williams of Menasha, WI, for being selected as Goodwill Industries International 2007 Achiever of the Year. Ms. Williams has earned this award for the bravery and spirit she displays through good times and bad. Throughout her life, Ms. Williams has overcome adversity and serious obstacles to become a proud mother and advocate for others. Through family tragedies and personal struggles, Ms. Williams never gave up. Instead, she dedicated herself to work on behalf of others in her community. As a job coach for people with disabilities, Ms. Williams is doing her ``dream job,'' and helping those with whom she works achieve their own dreams. In her new role as assistant store team leader she will continue to motivate others and do great things. As her employer's name suggests, Ms. Williams exemplifies and delivers good will. She tirelessly works to improve the lives of those around her. She is able to turn what life has presented to her, both good and bad, into valuable lessons for others. She is an inspiration to her sons, her colleagues, and to all of us. As the Goodwill Industries International Achiever of the Year, she embodies the Goodwill promise of enriching individual lives and the greater community. On behalf of our State and Nation, I join Goodwill Industries in recognizing and commending Ms. Williams, an extraordinary woman, for sharing her gifts with others.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 2736, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 introduced with my colleague Senator Charles Schumer. The HUD section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program is the only program that provides capital grants to nonprofit community organizations for the development of supportive housing and rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This program provides supportive services coupled with housing 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 to address the future housing needs of low-income seniors. Currently, there are 10 seniors vying for each unit that becomes available. This leaves many seniors waiting years before finding a home. To complicate matters, we are losing older section 202 properties in exchange for high priced condominiums and apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the program could end up homeless. Congress should act now to plan appropriately for the increased demand that will exist for housing in the coming years and ensure that seniors can find safe, affordable housing. Accordingly, I am pleased to join Senator Schumer in introducing the section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008. Our legislation would help 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, bureaucratic, and far too often require waivers and special permission from HUD to complete. This legislation also provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors seeking a place to call their own. With this legislation, 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. They do not deserve to end up homeless with no where to turn because they are stuck on long waiting lists. This Nation must do a better job at helping Americans have a place to call home during their golden years. I hope my colleagues will join me in my effort to do so.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. Over the last 7 years, the Bush administration has weakened the CPSC by cutting its budget and staff. In fact, the CPSC has hired just one full-time product tester since 2001. This led to fewer inspectors and more toxic toys and products on store shelves. This is unacceptable. The CPSC legislation that passed the Senate today provides much needed resources and enforcement powers to the CPSC so that more staff can be hired and oversight can be more vigorous. The CPSC legislation creates a consumer database for recalled products so that consumers can learn about potentially unsafe products without waiting for a public recall that can take months. Further, this bill would create new safeguards on lead in toys and other products and require mandatory independent testing of goods before they go to market. This bill also prohibits CPSC Commissioners and staff members from accepting trips paid for by industries and lobbyists with business before the Commission. Taken together, CPSC legislation will improve our product safety system and ensure that children's toys, household appliances, and other consumer products that contain lead will never reach consumers.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to offer at some point. I will not do so at this time, but I would like to make some general comments on the subject.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the bipartisan amendment I am talking about addresses the troubling use of court secrecy. Far too often, our courts permit vital information that is discovered in litigation, which bears directly on public health and safety, to be covered up. Our amendment is a narrowly targeted measure that will make sure court-endorsed secrecy does not prevent the public from learning about health and safety dangers. This amendment is a good amendment because it is a complement to this bill, and we know private lawsuits are often a critical source of information about dangerous products. Court secrecy often hinders regulatory agencies in their efforts to protect the public. Under the amendment, judges would have to consider public health and safety before granting a protective order for sealing court records and settlement agreements. Judges have the discretion to grant or deny secrecy based on a balancing test that weighs the public's interest and public health and safety hazards and legitimate interests in secrecy such as trade secrets. The amendment does not place an undue burden on our courts. It simply states that in a limited number of cases, judges would have to take a closer look at requests for secrecy. We know there are appropriate uses for these orders and we are confident that our judges will protect information that truly deserves it. We are all familiar with well-known cases where protective orders and secret settlements prevented the public from learning about the dangers of silicone breast implants, IUDs, prescription drugs, exploding gas tanks, dangerous playground equipment, collapsing baby cribs, and defective heart valves and tires. Had information about these harmful products not been sealed, injuries could have been prevented and lives could have been saved. At a December hearing, we learned that while some judges may be more aware of the issue, this problem continues, and we have examples to prove it. Johnny Bradley told us the chilling details of a car accident caused by tire tread separation that killed his wife and left him and his son severely injured. During his lawsuit against Cooper Tire, he learned that information about similar accidents had been kept secret for years through court orders and secret settlements. Today, details about this tire defect remain protected by court orders while Cooper Tire continues to aggressively fight attempts to make them public. We also heard from Judge Joe Anderson, a Federal district court judge in South Carolina. He supports the bill as a balanced approach to address ``a discernable and troubling trend'' for litigants to ask for secrecy in cases where public health and safety might be adversely affected. He told us about a local rule in South Carolina, one that goes even further than our amendment, and how it has been a great success. The number of trials has not increased and cases continue to settle even though secrecy is no longer an option in that court. I have heard concerns about national security and personally identifiable information so I have included language to ensure that this information is protected. I have also heard concerns about protecting trade secrets. I would like to make it very clear that our amendment protects trade secrets. We are confident that judges, as they are already required to do, will give ample consideration to them as part of the balancing test. However, we will not permit trade secrets that pose a threat to public health and safety--such as defective tire design--to justify secrecy. Some people argue that there is no evidence that protective orders or sealed settlements present a significant problem. Just ask the thousands of people who took the prescription drug Zyprexa without knowing the harmful side effects that were concealed by a secret settlement. Or ask the parents whose children were injured or killed by dangerous playground equipment, collapsing baby cribs, ATVs, and over- the-counter medicines. If information about these products had not been sealed, we may have known about the dangers and lives could have been saved. So I hope my colleagues will support the efforts we are trying to bring to bear to pass this long overdue legislation. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would temporarily suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air fresheners imported by S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI. I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2001, Wisconsin has been hit hard, losing over 63,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity and higher standards of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. The production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so many Amerian families healthy and strong. This legislation would suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air fresheners which S.C. Johnson assembles and packages in Racine, WI. Currently, there is no domestic manufacturer, which forces S.C. Johnson to import the product that has a 2.7 percent tariff. Suspending the tariff will cut production costs, keep jobs at home and allow S.C. Johnson to be more competitive in the global marketplace. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 3,000 people in Wisconsin and provides products in more than 110 countries around the world.

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. Currently, we are in the midst of the most serious business of our democracy--the primary elections to select the nominees to be our next President. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent elections have Shown us that unneeded obstacles are 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 American 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 needing 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 U.S. 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. And 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 U.S. 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 nonworking 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 nonworking 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 landowning 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, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we have seen in recent elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer than one or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. 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 common sense 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 rise today to introduce the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008 with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley conducted a great deal of valuable oversight for nursing homes during his tenure as Aging Committee chairman from 1997 through 2000, and he continues to make major contributions in this area today. Working toward higher standards of nursing home quality is a tradition of which I am proud to be a part. It is staggering to think that the most recent major law dictating Federal standards for quality, for data reporting, and for enforcement was passed in 1987. Twenty-one years later, we know that it has spurred important improvements in the quality of care provided in nursing homes. Yet we are far from finished, and there are additional improvements that need to be made. The first is in the area of transparency. If consumers can easily tell which homes have a solid enforcement track record, which are well- staffed, which are owned by a chain with a good reputation for providing excellent services--and which homes are not--then this sort of disclosure can serve as a powerful motivation for homes to provide the best possible care, to hire and keep the most dedicated staff, and to always prioritize the interests of residents. The court of public opinion and the strength of market forces are powerful and inexpensive tools we should be putting to good use. Our legislation will make sure all this information is available to consumers in a timely and easy-to-use fashion. We want Americans to be able to use the Federal Government's Web site, Nursing Home Compare, with ease. We want Americans to have access to the type of information that matters, such as the number of hours of care their loved one will receive from staff every day. We want Americans to be able to use this Web site to lodge complaints of mistreatment or neglect. These are simple, effective ideas, and our bill will make them a reality. The second area in need of improvement is our Government's system of nursing home quality enforcement. Under the current system, nursing homes that are not providing good care, or--even worse--are putting their residents in harms way, can escape penalty from the Government by abusing a lengthy appeal process, while they slip in and out of compliance with Federal regulations. This is unacceptable. We need the threat of sanctions to mean something--and under my bill with Senator Grassley, they will. Our legislation will require that all civil monetary penalties be collected and placed in an escrow account as soon as they are levied, pending the final resolution of any appeal. Financial penalties will be increased for serious quality deficiencies that cause actual harm to nursing home residents or put them in ``immediate jeopardy.'' In addition, our policy enables regulators to respond effectively when serious quality problems are evident in order to protect the safety of residents. The bill requires that States and facilities provide a secure and orderly process when relocating residents due to a nursing home closure. It also proposes national demonstrations to promote innovations in information technology and ``culture change'' in order to improve resident care. The Federal Government now spends $75 billion annually on nursing homes through Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is projected to rise as costs associated with the boomer generation increase. Congress has a responsibility to demand high-quality services for residents and accountability from the nursing home industry in return for this huge investment of public resources. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008 with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley conducted a great deal of valuable oversight for nursing homes during his tenure as Aging Committee chairman from 1997 through 2000, and he continues to make major contributions in this area today. Working toward higher standards of nursing home quality is a tradition of which I am proud to be a part. It is staggering to think that the most recent major law dictating Federal standards for quality, for data reporting, and for enforcement was passed in 1987. Twenty-one years later, we know that it has spurred important improvements in the quality of care provided in nursing homes. Yet we are far from finished, and there are additional improvements that need to be made. The first is in the area of transparency. If consumers can easily tell which homes have a solid enforcement track record, which are well- staffed, which are owned by a chain with a good reputation for providing excellent services--and which homes are not--then this sort of disclosure can serve as a powerful motivation for homes to provide the best possible care, to hire and keep the most dedicated staff, and to always prioritize the interests of residents. The court of public opinion and the strength of market forces are powerful and inexpensive tools we should be putting to good use. Our legislation will make sure all this information is available to consumers in a timely and easy-to-use fashion. We want Americans to be able to use the Federal Government's Web site, Nursing Home Compare, with ease. We want Americans to have access to the type of information that matters, such as the number of hours of care their loved one will receive from staff every day. We want Americans to be able to use this Web site to lodge complaints of mistreatment or neglect. These are simple, effective ideas, and our bill will make them a reality. The second area in need of improvement is our Government's system of nursing home quality enforcement. Under the current system, nursing homes that are not providing good care, or--even worse--are putting their residents in harms way, can escape penalty from the Government by abusing a lengthy appeal process, while they slip in and out of compliance with Federal regulations. This is unacceptable. We need the threat of sanctions to mean something--and under my bill with Senator Grassley, they will. Our legislation will require that all civil monetary penalties be collected and placed in an escrow account as soon as they are levied, pending the final resolution of any appeal. Financial penalties will be increased for serious quality deficiencies that cause actual harm to nursing home residents or put them in ``immediate jeopardy.'' In addition, our policy enables regulators to respond effectively when serious quality problems are evident in order to protect the safety of residents. The bill requires that States and facilities provide a secure and orderly process when relocating residents due to a nursing home closure. It also proposes national demonstrations to promote innovations in information technology and ``culture change'' in order to improve resident care. The Federal Government now spends $75 billion annually on nursing homes through Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is projected to rise as costs associated with the boomer generation increase. Congress has a responsibility to demand high-quality services for residents and accountability from the nursing home industry in return for this huge investment of public resources. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would temporarily suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air fresheners imported by S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI. I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2001, Wisconsin has been hit hard, losing over 63,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity and higher standards of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. The production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so many Amerian families healthy and strong. This legislation would suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air fresheners which S.C. Johnson assembles and packages in Racine, WI. Currently, there is no domestic manufacturer, which forces S.C. Johnson to import the product that has a 2.7 percent tariff. Suspending the tariff will cut production costs, keep jobs at home and allow S.C. Johnson to be more competitive in the global marketplace. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 3,000 people in Wisconsin and provides products in more than 110 countries around the world.

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. Currently, we are in the midst of the most serious business of our democracy--the primary elections to select the nominees to be our next President. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent elections have Shown us that unneeded obstacles are 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 American 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 needing 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 U.S. 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. And 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 U.S. 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 nonworking 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 nonworking 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 landowning 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, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we have seen in recent elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer than one or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. 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 common sense 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 rise today to recognize and honor the life of Robert Ball. Bob Ball has been a champion of America's elderly since 1939, helping to guide and strengthen our Social Security system for nearly 70 years. He was America's longest serving Social Security Commissioner, overseeing improvements to benefits such as the introduction of automatic cost-of-living adjustments. Today, about a third of our Nation's elderly rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, and two-thirds count on it to supply at least half of their income. It has been America's most successful anti- poverty program ever, due in no small part to Bob's influence. While he is little known outside Washington, Bob played a critical role in the origins of our most recognizable Government programs. His work led to the introduction of Social Security disability insurance, and now because of him more than 7 million Americans who can't work due to a disability can still live in dignity. He helped create our Medicare system, which now provides health care to more than 40 million elderly Americans. Even as he became a Social Security recipient himself, he continued to defend the program against benefit cuts and privatization proposals. There is no question that Robert Ball's work has improved the lives of millions of Americans. His character, wisdom, and leadership will be greatly missed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today our country is facing difficult economic times. Economic growth is slowing, consumers have maxed out their credit cards and are cutting back on spending, and the value of the dollar continues falling while prices for gas and food rise. Daily we hear news about growing problems in the mortgage industry, forcing our neighbors into foreclosure. In my State of Wisconsin, foreclosures are up 27 percent from this time last year, and it will get worse as more subprime mortgages adjust to unaffordable higher interest rates. Working families around the country are facing stagnant wages while prices rise, and their most important investment--their home--is losing value. In response to this bleak picture, the House and Senate have been able to move quickly in a bipartisan way to try to head off a growing economic storm. It is a rare moment these days when Senators set aside their individual priorities and agree on legislation for the greater good. But that is what has happened with the economic stimulus package that we are currently considering. This package strikes a balance between rebates, business needs, and immediate relief, and I am proud to support the bill before us today. The centerpiece of this legislation is a rebate of $500 per individual and $1,000 per couple, with an additional $300 rebate per child. This will provide effective and efficient relief for families while jump-starting our economy. We need to get this money into the hands of people who will spend it, so I applaud the Finance Committee decision to include income caps. Income caps ensure that recipients of the rebate--low- and middle- income working families--will put the money back into the economy. Finally, as the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I want to voice my strong support for the extension of rebates to low- and moderate-income seniors. The House-passed legislation would leave out nearly 20 million elderly people from receiving the rebate, even though they are facing the same rising prices as everyone else. Seniors living on fixed incomes deserve to share in this rebate after paying taxes for all their working lives. However, this package is not perfect. I was disappointed to see additional funding for food stamps was not included. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over food stamps, the hunger and nutrition programs are something I take very seriously. The strain this economy imposes on lower income Americans is abundantly clear to me. Before we even understood we were headed toward economic crisis, we increased WIC funding by some $600 million over the President's request simply to feed the people already in the program. And now that the crisis has become clear, how can we stand by and not do more? I hope the Senate will soon act to add an additional $5 billion in food stamp funding. With the downturn in the economy, we all know even more people will need a helping hand to put food on their family's table. We should increase funding for food stamps this year because we know there are families in dire need. And we should boost food stamps because we know spending will stimulate our economy. Every dollar spent on food stamps generates $1.73 in economic activity, and it happens quickly. Eighty percent of all benefits are used within 2 weeks of being sent out, and 97 percent are redeemed by the end of the month. And we don't have to create a new mechanism to deliver this stimulus. Adding food provisions to this package just makes sense. I am pleased the Senate has come together quickly to move this important package. We cannot delay, and we should not let this bill get bogged down. We need to pass it soon so hard-working Americans get the helping hand they deserve when they need it most. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Washington. I have reviewed her requests to our subcommittee and she is correct. The record should reflect her requests.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the hidden fees associated with 401(k) plans, an important issue affecting the retirement security of millions of Americans. These fees, currently not disclosed to plan participants, can have a drastic effect on one's retirement savings. More and more Americans are relying on defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) plans, to provide their retirement income. Although these plans have only been in existence since the 1980s, they now cover over 50 million people and exceed $2.5 trillion in total assets. Of those private sector workers with any type of retirement benefit; two thirds have only their 401(k) savings to secure their financial wellbeing in retirement. Although 401(k)s have become the primary pension fund for most Americans, there are few requirements for fee disclosure to fund managers, and there are absolutely no regulations requiring that plan participants be notified about how much they are paying in fees. Most fees are either absent or obscured in participant statements and investment reports. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that fewer than one in five participants know the fees they are paying. Unfortunately, this lack of disclosure and lack of understanding can have serious consequences on an individual's retirement savings. The slightest difference in fees can translate into a staggering depletion in savings, greatly affecting one's ability to build a secure retirement. According to the Congressional Research Service, families who save their retirement funds in high-fee accounts could have one- quarter less in retirement than those who work for employers who offer low-fee accounts. For couples who save over their entire lifetime, the CRS study found that an annual fee of 2 percent could reduce savings by nearly $130,000, compared to a more reasonable fee of 0.4 percent. Today, Senators Harkin and I are introducing the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act of 2007. We believe consumers have the right to clearly know how much products and services are costing them. Our bill will help shed some light on these fees by requiring complete transparency to both employers and participants. This will allow employers to negotiate with pension fund managers, in order to get the lowest possible fees for their employees. Participants will be able to make informed choices between investment options and potentially increase their retirement savings by thousands of dollars. Ultimately, this legislation will help lower costs for everyone by fostering competition among pension managers. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the hidden fees associated with 401(k) plans, an important issue affecting the retirement security of millions of Americans. These fees, currently not disclosed to plan participants, can have a drastic effect on one's retirement savings. More and more Americans are relying on defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) plans, to provide their retirement income. Although these plans have only been in existence since the 1980s, they now cover over 50 million people and exceed $2.5 trillion in total assets. Of those private sector workers with any type of retirement benefit; two thirds have only their 401(k) savings to secure their financial wellbeing in retirement. Although 401(k)s have become the primary pension fund for most Americans, there are few requirements for fee disclosure to fund managers, and there are absolutely no regulations requiring that plan participants be notified about how much they are paying in fees. Most fees are either absent or obscured in participant statements and investment reports. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that fewer than one in five participants know the fees they are paying. Unfortunately, this lack of disclosure and lack of understanding can have serious consequences on an individual's retirement savings. The slightest difference in fees can translate into a staggering depletion in savings, greatly affecting one's ability to build a secure retirement. According to the Congressional Research Service, families who save their retirement funds in high-fee accounts could have one- quarter less in retirement than those who work for employers who offer low-fee accounts. For couples who save over their entire lifetime, the CRS study found that an annual fee of 2 percent could reduce savings by nearly $130,000, compared to a more reasonable fee of 0.4 percent. Today, Senators Harkin and I are introducing the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act of 2007. We believe consumers have the right to clearly know how much products and services are costing them. Our bill will help shed some light on these fees by requiring complete transparency to both employers and participants. This will allow employers to negotiate with pension fund managers, in order to get the lowest possible fees for their employees. Participants will be able to make informed choices between investment options and potentially increase their retirement savings by thousands of dollars. Ultimately, this legislation will help lower costs for everyone by fostering competition among pension managers. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee about energy savings in Federal buildings in H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Along with Senators Feingold, Burr, and Corker, I offered an amendment to H.R. 6 that would require the Federal Government to procure the most energy-efficient commercial water heating systems in new or renovated Federal buildings. This language was not incorporated into the final version of the legislation we will be voting on today. I would ask Chairman Bingaman if the energy savings in the Federal building sections of H.R. 6 apply to all building systems and technologies, not just lighting?

Mr KOHL

Mr KOHL. I would like to thank the chairman for all of his help on this issue. Chairman Bingaman's leadership on energy efficiency and this Energy bill has been invaluable.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Energy bill that passed with my support. The bill requires that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022, and it establishes new appliance and lighting efficiency standards in government buildings. The bill also includes Federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. The Energy bill also improves CAFE standards, requiring cars and light trucks to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Increasing CAFE standards is a critical step that must be taken to reduce pollution and curb greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Higher CAFE standards will also benefit our families and our communities by reducing the burden of high gas prices freeing up more discretionary income for working families to spend on necessities such as food, health care, and housing. I was pleased that the final bill included an amendment I offered that would allow small manufacturers to access awards under the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive title. Considering that small manufacturers that employ roughly 75 employees or less contribute 29.5 percent to all value added to automobiles, it made sense that they should have the opportunity to get these awards. Taken together, this bill allows the United States to become more energy efficient in a cost effective and responsible way.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Grassley in support of amendment No. 3823. Our amendment will significantly enhance the antitrust review given to mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector. Concentration and consolidation in agriculture is a major concern for our hard working farmers. Due to the wave of mergers and acquisitions that have occurred throughout the agricultural sector in recent years, fewer and fewer food processors have captured a greater and greater share of the market for purchasing agricultural goods. Farmers have less choice of where to sell their products, and as a result the prices they receive continue to decline. Our Nation's farmers--who comprise less than 2 percent of the population--produce the most abundant, wholesome, and by far the cheapest supply of food on the face of the Earth. However, the way in which that food is produced is rapidly changing, creating significant new challenges. We have witnessed a massive reorganization in our food chain due to the increasing numbers of mergers in the dairy, livestock, grain, rail, and biotechnology industries. In fact, the top four beef packers control 71 percent of the market, the top four pork processors control 63 percent of the market and the top four poultry processors control 50 percent of the market. During this period of enormous transformation in the agricultural industry, disparity in market power between family farmers and the large conglomerates all too often leaves the individual farmer with little choice regarding who will buy their products and under what terms. The effects of this increasing consolidation are felt throughout the agricultural sector. Rather than buying on the open market, processors of farm commodities are relying more and more on contractual arrangements with farmers which bind farmers to sell a specified amount of product, for prices specified by the processors. In many cases, there is no longer a significant open market to which farmers and ranchers can turn. These contractual arrangements damage the independence of family farmers, leaving them little choice regarding what to grow and the terms on which to sell their products. Agricultural consolidation has also been pronounced in the dairy sector. Mergers among milk processors have greatly concentrated the industry, and resulted in lower prices for dairy farmers. There have been serious allegations of anticompetitive conduct by one large dairy processor in Florida and elsewhere resulting from this highly concentrated market. Unfortunately, in recent years our antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice have done little to stem the tide of ever increasing agricultural consolidation. This is why we are today offering this amendment to the farm bill. Our amendment will significantly enhance the scrutiny given to agricultural mergers under the antitrust laws. It will establish an Agricultural Competition Task Force--made up of representatives of antitrust enforcement officials, State and Federal agriculture regulatory officials, State attorneys generals, industry experts, and representatives of small family farmers and ranchers--charged to investigate problems of competition in agriculture and make recommendations to Congress and enforcement agencies on ways to enhance competition. Our amendment will also direct the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to develop, within 2 years, new guidelines for antitrust enforcement in the agricultural sector. These guidelines are to be written to prevent anticompetitive mergers in the agricultural industry. These guidelines will require the antitrust enforcement agencies to challenge any merger or acquisition in the agricultural sector, if the effect of that merger or acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly. The development of such strong guidelines should deter anticompetitive mergers from even being attempted in the first place. Our amendment will also provide a procedure for comments by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding proposed mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector. These comments should provide important expertise and enhance the merger review process of the antitrust agencies when reviewing agricultural mergers. In sum, our amendment is a significant measure to combat the ever rising tide of consolidation in agriculture which threatens to swamp our Nation's hard working family farmers. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 3823. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important health and safety information from the public. This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in product liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The injured party often faces a large corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of money defending the lawsuit and prolong its resolution. Facing a formidable opponent and mounting medical bills, plaintiffs often have no choice but to settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the litigation. Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep damaging information from getting out. Because they remain unaware of critical public health and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American public incurs the greatest cost. This concern for excessive secrecy is warranted by the fact that tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American people. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public to protect a company's reputation or profit margin. One of the most famous cases of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone tires. From 1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires were causing accidents across the country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late. More than 250 people had died, and more than 800 were injured as a result of the defective tires. If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for legislation. But, unfortunately, the list goes on. There is the case of General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued. Evidence suggests that the dangers posed by protective orders and secret settlements continue. On December 11, 2007, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley, Jr. described his tragic personal story about the implications of court-endorsed secrecy. In 2002, Mr. Bradley's wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and confidential settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident, Cooper had managed to keep the documents confidential. Prior to the end of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design defects, consumers will continue to remain in the dark. In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements required plaintiffs to agree, ``not to communicate, publish or cause to be published. . .any statement. . .concerning the specific events, facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In that case, the plaintiffs uncovered documents that showed that, through its own research, Lilly knew about the side effects as early as 1999. While the plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and generated $4.2 billion in sales that year. More than a year later, information about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 18,000 cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain, dangerously elevated blood sugar levels and diabetes. There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone, Cooper Tires, and Zyprexa, secrecy agreements had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products and drugs to remain on the market. And those are only the ones we know about. While some States have already begun to move in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies. This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. 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 Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important health and safety information from the public. This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in product liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The injured party often faces a large corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of money defending the lawsuit and prolong its resolution. Facing a formidable opponent and mounting medical bills, plaintiffs often have no choice but to settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the litigation. Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep damaging information from getting out. Because they remain unaware of critical public health and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American public incurs the greatest cost. This concern for excessive secrecy is warranted by the fact that tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American people. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public to protect a company's reputation or profit margin. One of the most famous cases of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone tires. From 1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires were causing accidents across the country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late. More than 250 people had died, and more than 800 were injured as a result of the defective tires. If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for legislation. But, unfortunately, the list goes on. There is the case of General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued. Evidence suggests that the dangers posed by protective orders and secret settlements continue. On December 11, 2007, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley, Jr. described his tragic personal story about the implications of court-endorsed secrecy. In 2002, Mr. Bradley's wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and confidential settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident, Cooper had managed to keep the documents confidential. Prior to the end of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design defects, consumers will continue to remain in the dark. In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements required plaintiffs to agree, ``not to communicate, publish or cause to be published. . .any statement. . .concerning the specific events, facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In that case, the plaintiffs uncovered documents that showed that, through its own research, Lilly knew about the side effects as early as 1999. While the plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and generated $4.2 billion in sales that year. More than a year later, information about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 18,000 cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain, dangerously elevated blood sugar levels and diabetes. There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone, Cooper Tires, and Zyprexa, secrecy agreements had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products and drugs to remain on the market. And those are only the ones we know about. While some States have already begun to move in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies. This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.