Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last night, after months of political posturing, the Senate voted to prevent a massive tax burden from falling on 21 million Americans. Without last night's action, millions of middle-class Americans would have been impacted by the alternative minimum tax, a tax meant to impact only the wealthiest individuals. And while I believe the legislation we passed was not perfect, I would have preferred that we adhere to the pay-go rules that I voted for--it was a compromise I supported. I must express my disappointment at what it took to get us here. There was no disagreement over whether we should prevent middle-class families from being hit by the AMT. So why would it take months to get this legislation passed? Sadly, the debate surrounded whether or not we should pass the burden of paying for this fix onto the next generation. Republicans wanted to borrow money to pay for this tax cut, while Democrats argued that we should be more responsible and not leave our children with the bill. In addition to not offsetting the cost of the AMT fix, the Senate failed to pass a tax extenders package. In October, the House passed fully offset legislation that would both fix the AMT and extend certain tax provisions that will expire at the end of the year. These provisions--such as the research and development credit, the tuition deduction, and the deduction for teachers' classroom expenses--are vital to millions of Americans. The Senate had an opportunity to renew these credits and deductions in a fiscally responsible manner. I hope my colleagues will reconsider in the coming weeks and will pass a tax extenders package before we adjourn for the year. Despite all this, we did the right thing in passing an AMT fix. The AMT was originally intended to prevent the wealthiest Americans from avoiding paying any income tax. But due to inflation and various changes in tax law, the AMT had morphed and grown--without last night's action, nearly two and a half million families making less than $75,000 would have to pay the AMT. That is well beyond the scope of what Congress intended when the AMT was put in place, and I am glad we could take the necessary step to prevent that from happening. I hope my colleagues on the House side will move quickly to get this legislation passed. It is not perfect. Things around here rarely are. And while this bill is fiscally irresponsible, it is equally irresponsible to allow millions of Americans to be hit by a tax that was never intended for them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when voters gave Democrats control of Congress, they wanted a new direction on trade policy. They wanted trade agreements that would hold our trading partners to the same labor and environmental standards expected of U.S. companies. And they wanted trade agreements that would level the playing field for U.S. businesses. Democrats listened. I am supporting the Peru FTA because it is a new model for trade agreements that includes enforceable labor and environmental protections. For the first time, the U.S. will have the right to hold a trading partner accountable if labor or environmental issues become a problem. The Peru FTA benefits Wisconsin companies and workers. Wisconsin exports to Peru have increased from $9.3 million in 2002 to $43.5 million in 2006. This agreement will help trade between the U.S. and Peru flourish and keep businesses and jobs in Wisconsin, something I couldn't say about several previous trade agreements. Further, the Peru FTA eliminates the current 10 percent tariff on U.S. goods entering Peru. This will remove barriers to Wisconsin exports and make Wisconsin businesses even more competitive. The Peru FTA is the first step in a new direction for trade policy that will enforce labor and environmental standards and help U.S. businesses gain access to new markets.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that will help rural communities across the country develop affordable housing. This amendment will authorize appropriations for the Housing Assistance Council, HAC, which has been committed to developing affordable housing in rural communities for over 35 years. The amendment provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and then $15 million in fiscal year 2009 to 2012. In the past, the council has received appropriations from the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program. The funding has helped HAC provide loans to 1,875 organizations across the country, raise and distribute over $5 million in capacity building grants, and hold regional training workshops. These critical services help local organizations, rural communities, and cities develop safe and affordable housing. Throughout the country, approximately one-fifth of the Nation's population lives in rural communities. About 7.5 million of the rural population is living in poverty, and 2.5 million of them are children. Nearly 3.6 million rural households pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs. While housing costs are generally lower in rural counties, wages are dramatically outpaced by the cost of housing. Additionally, the housing conditions are often substandard, and there are many families doubled up due to lack of housing. Rural areas lack both affordable rental units and home ownership opportunities needed to serve the population. In Wisconsin, HAC has provided close to $5.2 million in grants and loans to 17 nonprofit housing organizations and helped develop 820 units of housing. Specifically, since 1972 the Southeastern Wisconsin Housing Corporation has partnered with the Housing Assistance Council to develop 268 units of self-help housing. The presence of the council in Wisconsin has made a huge impact on rural housing development in Wisconsin and other rural communities across the country. I hope that my colleagues see the importance of this amendment and include it in H.R. 2419. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I use today to introduce legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing''. Last June, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the internet site Amazon, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices. From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they were violating the rule against vertical price fixing. So I know first hand the dangers to competition and discounting of permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies the Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the states that allowed vertical price fixing than the states that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $2.1 billion per year at that time. Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even greater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $300 billion dollars, translating into retail bills that would average $750 to $ 1,000 dollars higher for the average family of four every year. Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers. In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason. In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.'' In July, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the market place to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers. The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day. In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I use today to introduce legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing''. Last June, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the internet site Amazon, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices. From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they were violating the rule against vertical price fixing. So I know first hand the dangers to competition and discounting of permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies the Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the states that allowed vertical price fixing than the states that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $2.1 billion per year at that time. Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even greater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $300 billion dollars, translating into retail bills that would average $750 to $ 1,000 dollars higher for the average family of four every year. Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers. In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason. In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.'' In July, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the market place to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers. The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day. In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to congratulate Mr. George F. Potaracke on his retirement from the Wisconsin Board on Aging and Long Term Care, where he has served as executive director since 1981. Mr. Potaracke has been with the Board on Aging and Long Term Care since its inception in the early 1980s and was selected as its first executive director. Under his leadership, the Board on Aging and Long Term Care has grown from an agency of only 3 employees to an agency of 30 employees with offices throughout the State. Along with his duties as executive director of the Board on Aging and Longterm Care, Mr. Potaracke directs the Wisconsin Medigap hotline, which provides counseling services for Medicare beneficiaries in Wisconsin. He is the treasurer of the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform and an adviser to the National Health Policy Council and the Aging Leadership Council. He has served as president of the National Association of State Long Term Care Programs and leads fundraising efforts for this organization. In addition to his work on behalf of seniors, Mr. Potaracke is actively involved with the national Human Rights Campaign, the AIDS Support Network of Southern Wisconsin, Frontier Men of Dane County, and the New Harvest Foundation, where he chairs fund-raising efforts. Throughout his career, Mr. Potaracke has dedicated himself to a wide range of aging services. As chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I have had the distinct privilege of working with Mr. Potaracke on a variety of issues and hold his opinion in the highest regard. He is nationally recognized as an advocate for our aging population and has truly made a difference on behalf of all seniors. On behalf of our State and Nation, I thank Mr. Potaracke for his service and wish him good health, happiness, and prosperity for many years to come.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to congratulate Mr. James Pelletier of Rhinelander, WI, on being awarded the French Legion of Honor for his extraordinary bravery in liberating France during the Second World War. The Legion of Honor is the highest honor awarded by the nation of France. In December of 1942, at the age of 18, Mr. Pelletier joined the U.S. Army. He took part in military campaigns in northern France and in the Ardennes Raid. He participated in battles to help the allies take back many cities, including Nogent, Conches and Versailles. The Second World War has so much significance in modern history. An entire generation rallied together to defend the rights of freedom and liberty, not just for the United States but for the entire world. The world in which we live was shaped by the actions of these brave soldiers. Mr. Pelletier is a member of our Greatest Generation that built modern America. Their efforts kept us safe and allowed our communities to flourish. These heroes were united in the common values of duty, honor, service and love of country. As a nation, we are forever grateful for the sacrifices and courage of these brave veterans of the Second World War. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate Mr. James Pelletier and his family on this prestigious honor and thank him for his brave service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to recognize and honor Mr. Lyle Solchenberger of Lake Mills, WI, on being awarded the French Legion of Honor for his extraordinary bravery in liberating France during the Second World War. The Legion of Honor is the highest honor awarded by the nation of France. In April of 1943, at the age of 21, Mr. Solchenberger enlisted in the military. He participated in military campaigns in central Europe and the Rhineland and fought for the liberation of several cities. The Second World War has so much significance in modern history. An entire generation rallied together to defend the rights of freedom and liberty, not just for the United States, but for the entire world. The world in which we live was shaped by the actions of these brave soldiers. Mr. Solchenberger is a member of our Greatest Generation that built modern America. Their efforts kept us safe and allowed our communities to flourish. These heroes were united in the common values of duty, honor, service and love of country. As a nation, we are forever grateful for the sacrifices and courage of these brave veterans of the Second World War. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate Mr. Lyle Solchenberger and his family on this prestigious honor and thank him for his brave service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to honor Mr. James Hickey of Green Bay, WI, on being awarded the French Legion of Honor for his extraordinary bravery in liberating France during the Second World War. The Legion of Honor is the highest honor awarded by the nation of France. In June 1943, at the age of 18, Mr. Hickey joined the military. In August of 1944, he was sent overseas to France where he participated in military campaigns in southern France and the Rhineland. He was wounded on December 12, 1944. The Second World War has so much significance in modern history. An entire generation rallied together to defend the rights of freedom and liberty, not just for the United States but for the entire world. The world in which we live was shaped by the actions of these brave soldiers. Mr. Hickey is a member of our Greatest Generation that built modern America. Their efforts kept us safe and allowed our communities to flourish. These heroes were united in the common values of duty, honor, service and love of country. As a nation, we are forever grateful for the sacrifices and courage of these brave veterans of the Second World War. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate Mr. James Hickey and his family on this prestigious honor and thank him for his brave service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take time to recognize Mr. John Hall of Middleton, WI, on being awarded the French Legion of Honor for his extraordinary bravery in liberating France during the Second World War. The Legion of Honor is the highest honor awarded by the nation of France. In December 1942, at the age of 18, Mr. Hall enlisted in the military. He took part in military campaigns in Italy, the Rhineland, and the south and east of France. He was wounded in September 1944. The Second World War has so much significance in modern history. An entire generation rallied together to defend the rights of freedom and liberty, not just for the United States but for the entire world. The world in which we live was shaped by the actions of these brave soldiers. Mr. Hall is a member of our Greatest Generation that built modern America. Their efforts kept us safe and allowed our communities to flourish. These heroes were united in the common values of duty, honor, service and love of country. As a nation, we are forever grateful for the sacrifices and courage of these brave veterans of the Second World War. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate Mr. John Hall and his family on this prestigious honor and thank him for his brave service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today, I rise to welcome Rev. Dennis Ellisen to the Senate and to thank him for this morning's heartfelt and timely prayer. Reverend Ellisen is the senior pastor at Our Saviour's Lutheran Church in Appleton, WI. He has served his parish for the last 31 years. Early on, his church had just a few hundred members. He has seen kids in his parish grow up to have kids of their own. Now his congregation is well over 2,600 strong. As many in Appleton will tell you, Reverend Ellisen's ministry has touched so many families beyond his church's walls. He has been a tireless advocate for cancer research, treatment, and education. His work as an ambassador and fundraiser for the American Cancer Society has taken him to every corner of our State and every corridor of Congress. His message is unwavering: If we work together, we can beat this terrible disease. Yet he may be best known in the community for helping comfort the terminally ill. Through his work with the Visiting Nurse Association, he started the first hospice program in Appleton many years ago. I had the privilege of introducing Reverend Ellisen on the Senate floor in 1997. Much has changed in the world, but he has remained the humble, compassionate person I met a decade ago. And, thankfully, his important work endures. We need to hear his hopeful invocation today. I thank Reverend Ellisen and his family for joining us. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to recognize and honor Mr. Stephen Kellman of Weston, WI, on being awarded the French Legion of Honor for his extraordinary bravery in liberating France during the Second World War. The Legion of Honor is the highest honor awarded by the nation of France. In May 1943, at the age of 20, Mr. Kellman joined the military. Despite being wounded in June of 1944, Mr. Kellman actively participated in military campaigns in northern France and Normandy. The Second World War has so much significance in modern history. An entire generation rallied together to defend the rights of freedom and liberty, not just for the United States, but for the entire world. The world in which we live was shaped by the actions of these brave soldiers. Mr. Kellman is a member of our Greatest Generation that built modern America. Their efforts kept us safe and allowed our communities to flourish. These heroes were united in the common values of duty, honor, service and love of country. As a nation, we are forever grateful for the sacrifices and courage of these brave veterans of the Second World War. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate Mr. Stephen Kellman and his family on this prestigious honor and thank him for his brave service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preparing America's Seniors for the Digital Television Transition Act of 2007. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to slipping through the cracks of the digital television transition. Not only are they more likely to rely on free over-the-air analog TV, but for many seniors television is their only link to the outside world. Yet the majority of the public remains unaware of the impending digital television transition. Millions of Americans may turn on their TVs on February 18, 2009, only to find themselves left in the dark without access to critical weather updates, emergency alerts, news or entertainment programming. In my home state of Wisconsin alone, over half a million households rely on free over-the-air TV. As Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I recently held a hearing entitled, ``Preparing for the Digital Television Transition: Will Seniors Be Left in the Dark?'' Our hearing uncovered several concerns. First, seniors need targeted outreach about the transition and the related coupon program. Second, there is shockingly little coordination between the Government agencies overseeing the transition and the voluntary industry efforts to educate consumers. Third, nonprofit organizations require additional resources to sufficiently assist seniors with navigating the transition. Finally, the Government's plan to provide coupons to partially offset the cost of a converter box is fraught with confusion and vulnerable to fraud and abuse. My legislation will address these problems by creating a formalized partnership between the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Administration on Aging with specific reporting requirements. Together these entities will work with stakeholders such as the broadcasters, the aging network, disability groups, rural Americans, and State, local and tribal governments to craft a coordinated outreach campaign. This legislation will also establish a grant program to ensure that nonprofits and state and local government agencies, like area agencies on aging, have access to assistance as they help seniors and other vulnerable populations navigate the transition and the coupon program. This legislation will help safeguard seniors and their families by facilitating a number of common sense solutions. The bill requires commercial broadcasters to air public service announcements and develop consumer education plans to meet the needs of local viewers. It requires that coupon-eligible converter boxes are easily identifiable to mitigate the potential of consumers being swayed into purchasing expensive equipment they do not need. It also requires that manufacturers of converter boxes maintain a toll-free 1-800 number to assist individuals with installation. It sets specific reporting requirements for the FCC and NTIA to monitor the progress of their consumer awareness campaign and the coupon program. The legislation also modifies the coupon program to ensure that households relying solely on over-the-air television sets are prioritized and that residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities are eligible to participate. I want to thank the following organizations for endorsing this legislation: AARP, the Association for Public Television Stations, the National Association of State Units on Aging, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Meals on Wheels Association of America, and the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs. Senior citizens deserve to receive targeted outreach and complete information about the upcoming transition. They do not deserve to be the brunt of fraudulent schemes or to be left in the dark after February 17, 2009. I believe we must prepare America's seniors, and I hope my colleagues will join in my effort to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I submitted amendment No. 3128 along with Senator Kennedy to allow the Navy to provide up to $2 million to DRS in Milwaukee, WI, for DDG51 Class Modernization, Hybrid Propulsion Permanent Magnet Drive System. This would give the Navy the flexibility to develop a hybrid drive system to increase fuel economy. Today the DDG51 uses gas turbines to power the propulsion system. Installing a hybrid system would allow an electric motor to drive the ship at low speed when the main turbine would be very inefficient. The project is expected to pay for itself in saved fuel costs in 3 years. This upgrade would be performed as the DDG51s underwent their 15-year midlife upgrade. While the work envisioned in this amendment would be done in Milwaukee, part of the work would also be done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preparing America's Seniors for the Digital Television Transition Act of 2007. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to slipping through the cracks of the digital television transition. Not only are they more likely to rely on free over-the-air analog TV, but for many seniors television is their only link to the outside world. Yet the majority of the public remains unaware of the impending digital television transition. Millions of Americans may turn on their TVs on February 18, 2009, only to find themselves left in the dark without access to critical weather updates, emergency alerts, news or entertainment programming. In my home state of Wisconsin alone, over half a million households rely on free over-the-air TV. As Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I recently held a hearing entitled, ``Preparing for the Digital Television Transition: Will Seniors Be Left in the Dark?'' Our hearing uncovered several concerns. First, seniors need targeted outreach about the transition and the related coupon program. Second, there is shockingly little coordination between the Government agencies overseeing the transition and the voluntary industry efforts to educate consumers. Third, nonprofit organizations require additional resources to sufficiently assist seniors with navigating the transition. Finally, the Government's plan to provide coupons to partially offset the cost of a converter box is fraught with confusion and vulnerable to fraud and abuse. My legislation will address these problems by creating a formalized partnership between the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Administration on Aging with specific reporting requirements. Together these entities will work with stakeholders such as the broadcasters, the aging network, disability groups, rural Americans, and State, local and tribal governments to craft a coordinated outreach campaign. This legislation will also establish a grant program to ensure that nonprofits and state and local government agencies, like area agencies on aging, have access to assistance as they help seniors and other vulnerable populations navigate the transition and the coupon program. This legislation will help safeguard seniors and their families by facilitating a number of common sense solutions. The bill requires commercial broadcasters to air public service announcements and develop consumer education plans to meet the needs of local viewers. It requires that coupon-eligible converter boxes are easily identifiable to mitigate the potential of consumers being swayed into purchasing expensive equipment they do not need. It also requires that manufacturers of converter boxes maintain a toll-free 1-800 number to assist individuals with installation. It sets specific reporting requirements for the FCC and NTIA to monitor the progress of their consumer awareness campaign and the coupon program. The legislation also modifies the coupon program to ensure that households relying solely on over-the-air television sets are prioritized and that residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities are eligible to participate. I want to thank the following organizations for endorsing this legislation: AARP, the Association for Public Television Stations, the National Association of State Units on Aging, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Meals on Wheels Association of America, and the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs. Senior citizens deserve to receive targeted outreach and complete information about the upcoming transition. They do not deserve to be the brunt of fraudulent schemes or to be left in the dark after February 17, 2009. I believe we must prepare America's seniors, and I hope my colleagues will join in my effort to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to recognize and congratulate the Conrath Post Office, located in Conrath, WI, on its 100th anniversary. In 1904, the Conrath brothers settled in what would later become the village of Conrath. Located in northwest Wisconsin, the village sat on the Wisconsin Central Railroad line between Owen, WI, and Duluth, MN. In 1905, Frank Conrath sent 10 possible names to the railroad general passenger agent for the naming of the village. The general passenger agent decided on the name that still stands today: Conrath. Mrs. Frank Conrath wrote to the postmaster general in 1905 to request that a post office be established in the village. The post office moved into the Rusk Farm Company Store where George W. Kendall became the first postmaster in 1907. The first rural mail carrier in Conrath was Joseph Hahn, who delivered the mail in a single-cylinder, chain-drive, high-wheel-car. Throughout the past century, there have been 21 postmasters and postmistresses, as well as numerous rural route carriers, who have diligently served the residents of Conrath. Just as Mrs. Conrath did over 100 years ago, residents in Conrath have continued to express the need for the Conrath Post Office as well as value the service and benefit to their community. That is why I am proud to have worked with the residents of the village in support of their efforts to maintain this post office. When they told me it might close, I worked with residents to convey these concerns to the U.S. Postal Service in order to ensure that this historic post office remains open and that rural residents continue to have effective and consistent postal service. On behalf of our State and Nation, I congratulate the Conrath Post Office on its 100th anniversary and send my best wishes to all residents of the village of Conrath.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support amendment No. 2818, offered by colleagues, Senators Durbin, Snowe, Collins, Kerry, and myself. This amendment would limit the amount of operating funds a small public housing authority will lose each year if they decide to opt out of asset management. The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a final rule on September 19, 2005, that outlines procedures for public housing authorities to convert to asset management accounting. In the recent past, Congress has urged the Department to review and postpone the conversion process due to lack of guidance and difficulty many PHAs are facing to implement the new plan. Small PHAs are having an extremely hard time converting to asset management due to lack of funds and staff. Most of these agencies only have one or two people in the central office and their operating subsidy has been continuously underfunded. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations legislation includes language that will allow small agencies to opt out of asset management; however their operating fund subsidy will be reduced each year they do not convert. This amendment would help PHAs which operate 250 units or less and opt out of asset management by limiting the amount of money their operating subsidy can be reduced each year to 5 percent. In Wisconsin, numerous agencies have expressed their support for the stop-loss provision. For example, the Eau Claire Housing Authority would lose half of their subsidy by 2012, the Beloit Housing Authority would lose over $20,000 in operating funds in the first year and an additional $10,000 each year until 2012, and the Ladysmith Housing Authority, located in Rusk County, would lose over $15,000. These are just three examples out of the 46 agencies in Wisconsin that would be negatively impacted by HUD's rule if this amendment is not adopted. It is imperative that these agencies stay operational. They serve the housing needs for the low-income and elderly in rural communities across the country. I urge the adoption of this important amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the manufacturing sector is under siege from cheap imports, unfair trade agreements, and escalating heath care and energy costs. Instead of working to alleviate this burden, the Bush administration has turned its back on manufacturing. The administration slashed funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, in this year's budget. MEP helps manufacturers streamline operations, integrate new technologies, shorten production times, and lower costs. ATP provides grants to support research and development of high-risk, cutting edge technologies. Both MEP and ATP help manufacturers survive and compete with countries such as China. Today I offer, with Senator Voinovich, some help for beleaguered manufacturers. The Advanced Multidisciplinary Computing Software Center Act was drafted from recommendations made by the Council on Competitiveness regarding high-performance computing. The legislation would provide grants for the creation of five Advanced Computing Software Centers throughout the United States that would transfer high- performance computing technologies to small businesses and manufacturers. High-performance computing will allow manufacturers to visualize and simulate parts and products before they can be created, which will cut the time and cost required to experiment with new materials. General Motors, for example, uses high-performance computing to simulate collisions, saving millions of dollars in development costs and substantially shortening design cycle times. Presently, only large companies like GM have the resources to reap the benefits of high-performance computing. This bill would provide grants to small and medium manufacturers to implement this technology and create new opportunities for economic growth, job creation, and product development and allow manufacturers and businesses to harness the full potential of high-performance computing

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about putting our country on a path to insuring all of its children. For the past decade, the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--has given kids in working families the doctor's visits and medicines they need when they are sick, and the checkups they need to stay well. Skyrocketing health care costs combined with a decline in employer- sponsored health insurance means that thousands of kids and families would go without basic medical care if CHIP did not fill the need. There are now more than 46 million uninsured Americans--9 million are children. This is simply unacceptable--every child needs health insurance. Without health insurance, many families must forgo routine checkups, crossing their fingers that their children will stay healthy. If their son or daughter becomes ill, they wait to see if the symptoms go away. But delay can be tragic. If those symptoms linger or get worse, parents are forced to take their kids to the emergency room for help. When a common cold turns into pneumonia, what would have been a simple, cheap fix if caught early, mushrooms into a complicated, lengthy and expensive treatment. Wisconsin's CHIP program, called BadgerCare, serves 67,000 working families and makes all the difference in a child's future. BadgerCare kids are healthier and more likely to succeed in school--including increased school attendance and a greater ability to pay attention in class. However, there are over 100,000 kids in Wisconsin who are eligible for BadgerCare, but are left out--in danger of having a small health problem becoming a life threatening illness. In order to reach these kids, Wisconsin received a waiver from this administration to cover their parents. Secretary Leavitt recognized that when the family is insured, children have better access to health care and get the preventative health services they need saving expensive trips to the emergency room. BadgerCare provides seamless coverage for families and works to reduce the number of uninsured children. Strengthening BadgerCare will ensure that this successful program can continue to cover working families in Wisconsin. It is a good investment of our scarce Federal dollars. The bipartisan Senate Finance Committee agreement to renew CHIP is the right approach. It provides an investment of $35 billion over 5 years to strengthen CHIP and it is completely paid for. No one loses health coverage as a result of this reauthorization. It keeps coverage for the 6.6 million low-income children currently enrolled in CHIP and gives States the resources necessary to reach an additional 3.2 million uninsured children eligible but not enrolled in CHIP. The initial price tag may seem steep, but, in the long run, it will save money. By catching and treating childhood illnesses early, we will save money that would be spent on emergency care. I want to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley for their tireless work on this compromise. It is my hope that the Senate will act to put kids first and support this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the past few years, the newspapers were consistently laden with stories of scandal at every level of government. In November, the American people told us that they were tired of Congressional corruption. And today, the Senate finally acted. Despite countless hurdles and setbacks, today Congress will pass the most significant overhaul of lobbying and ethics rules in decades, and in doing so will fundamentally change the way we do business here. Just as I did last year when I spoke on similar legislation, I want to make it clear to my constituents that I take no contributions from special interest PACS or lobbyists. I am beholden to no one except the people of Wisconsin, and I hold myself and my office to the highest standard of conduct regardless of any legislation. But the growing number of scandals--and the strengthened voice of the American people against that corruption--made clear the need for this legislation. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this bill does not constitute true change. While these individuals focus on what they see as shortcomings, I choose to focus on the monumental reforms contained in the bill. The bill includes important restrictions on gifts and travel from lobbyists. It prevents a ``revolving door'' scenario, one in which Senators and senior staff are given complete access to lobby their former colleagues. Finally, the legislation restores common sense in its treatment of convicted Members of Congress by denying them Congressional retirement benefits. I also support the earmark provisions contained in the bill. These bring an unprecedented amount of transparency to the earmarking process. It requires earmarks included in bills and conference reports to be identified on the Internet at least 48 hours before the Senate votes. Last minute additions to conference reports are subject to a 60- vote point of order under this bill. Every American deserves to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and I believe this bill helps our constituents do just that. I will continue to represent the people of Wisconsin without regard to special interests. And I will continue to hold myself and my office to the highest levels of accountability. It is my hope that this legislation will restore the trust of the American people, a trust eroded by so many Congressional scandals. It has been a long time coming, but the passage of this legislation today marks a new way of doing business in Washington, one that the voters have demanded and the people deserve.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit Card Protection Act of 2007 with my colleagues Senators Smith, McCaskill, Sanders, and Durbin. This legislation will help prevent college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in school. College students have become the target of credit card companies advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card application. Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000. Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must co-sign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy. It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in student loan debt. Paying for housing, healthcare, and student loans already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge credit card payment on top of all card of the other bills can lead to financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt repayment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I wish to discuss several provisions in the conference bill, H.R. 1, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I wish to thank Senators Lieberman, Collins, Dodd, and Shelby for working with me and my staff on provisions that will protect seniors in the event of an emergency or disaster. It has been nearly 2 years since our Nation reeled from the tragic and shameful images of seniors abandoned during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Sadly, we now know that 71 percent of the people who died were older than 60. Last year, the Special Committee on Aging held a hearing to examine how prepared the Nation is to care for our seniors in the event of a national emergency. What we learned was disheartening. We learned that our Nation is woefully unprepared to meet the unique needs of our seniors in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other emergency. Cookie-cutter emergency plans are of little use to seniors, especially those who depend on others for assistance in their daily lives. We need specific plans, programs, and information for all seniors facing emergencies. That is why I teamed up with Senator Coleman to continue to work with the committees of jurisdiction to ensure that the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation place seniors on the forefront of their emergency planning agenda. These provisions are an important step toward ensuring that seniors are not overlooked but are protected when the next national emergency occurs. I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins again for working with us to include two important provisions in titles I and IV that will address emergency preparedness and planning for older individuals. The first provision we have successfully included amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure that as State, local, and tribal governments develop their mass-evacuation plans they include specific procedures to inform the elderly before and during an evacuation. This will send a strong signal to States and communities that are engaged in emergency planning that seniors must be a priority and cannot be forgotten or ignored during mass evacuations. This will also assist older individuals and their families in appropriately preparing for an evacuation during an emergency or other disaster. The second provision we have included amends the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to ensure that the National Exercise Program is designed to address the unique needs of older individuals. The National Exercise Program was originally created to test and evaluate our Nation's level of preparedness and capability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from national disasters. Such testing and evaluation will allow emergency management entities to effectively identify, assess, and improve vulnerabilities at the State, local, and tribal levels. This provision will keep older individuals on the forefront of national emergency planning. I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby again for working with us to successfully include and expand upon our original provision in title XIV, supported by the American Public Health Association, which would ensure that public transportation workers and other related employees are trained to meet the evacuation needs of seniors in the event of a crisis. The Secretary of Homeland Security will establish a program to conduct security exercises, which will be scaled to meet the needs of specific transportation systems and must take into account the needs of seniors who utilize those systems. Additionally, another provision in this title will ensure that transportation agencies receiving grant funding in high-risk areas have mandatory security plans in place that must include appropriate evacuation and communication measures for the elderly as a component of each agency's plan. Both provisions are particularly important since so many of our seniors utilize public transportation for access to their everyday needs. Furthermore, only public transportation has the capacity to move millions of people and provide first responders with critical support in major evacuations of urban areas. Mr. President, these four provisions will go a long way in ensuring that our seniors are taken care of if we have another national emergency or disaster. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita taught us many painful lessons that should never be forgotten. I will not forget, and I intend to pursue additional legislation aimed at explicitly safeguarding the needs of America's seniors in the event of an emergency. The time to act to protect our seniors is now.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hatch to introduce a resolution to increase awareness of Polycystic Kidney Disease, PKD, a common and life threatening genetic illness. Over 600,000 people have been diagnosed with PKD nationwide including 10,000 people in my home State of Wisconsin. There is no treatment or cure for PKD. Families and friends struggle to fight this disease and provide unwavering support to their loved ones suffering from PKD. But there is hope. The PKD Foundation has led the fight for increased research and patient education. Recent studies have led to the discovery of the genes that cause PKD as well as promising clinical drug trials for treatment. More needs to be done and the Government wants to help. In order to increase public awareness of this fatal disease, I propose that September 9 through 16 be designated as ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week.'' This week coincides with the annual walk for PKD which takes place every September. In Wisconsin, residents gather across the State to take part in this very special walk. Increasing awareness will help all those affected by this terrible disease. I hope my colleagues will support this important resolution.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accountability and Transparency in Medicare Marketing Act, on behalf of myself and Senator Dorgan and Wyden. This legislation aims to regulate the marketing standards and sales tactics of Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug plans, now the fastest growing segment of Medicare and a prime target for fraud, misrepresentation, and deceptive sales practices. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I recently held a hearing entitled, ``Medicare Advantage Marketing and Sales: Who Has the Advantage?'' Our hearing uncovered that a large majority of State insurance departments have received, and continue to receive, an unprecedented number of complaints about inappropriate or confusing marketing practices that have led Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans without adequately understanding the consequences of their decisions. My legislation will facilitate the creation of uniform marketing standards that will be adopted and enforced by individual states. Based on current law, CMS has exclusive authority to investigate and discipline the marketing and selling of Medicare advantage products, while States have only been permitted to examine and enforce violations against individual insurance agents. This unusual arrangement, which some might call a pre-emption of authority, has left a sizable enforcement gap that has exacerbated the problems found by the committee. This legislation will close that gap, giving States the ability to standardize marketing and sales regulations, as well as regulate both agents and companies in the marketing and sales of Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans. Ultimately, State insurance commissioners will have the ability to work in conjunction with CMS in order to provide the most comprehensive protection possible for Medicare beneficiaries. Senior citizens deserve to have access to the health care plan that best serves their needs without having to worry about being purposely mislead and deceived. I believe we must repair this disconnect in oversight and ensure the protection of American seniors, and I hope my colleagues will join in my effort to do so. 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 Accountability and Transparency in Medicare Marketing Act, on behalf of myself and Senator Dorgan and Wyden. This legislation aims to regulate the marketing standards and sales tactics of Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug plans, now the fastest growing segment of Medicare and a prime target for fraud, misrepresentation, and deceptive sales practices. As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I recently held a hearing entitled, ``Medicare Advantage Marketing and Sales: Who Has the Advantage?'' Our hearing uncovered that a large majority of State insurance departments have received, and continue to receive, an unprecedented number of complaints about inappropriate or confusing marketing practices that have led Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans without adequately understanding the consequences of their decisions. My legislation will facilitate the creation of uniform marketing standards that will be adopted and enforced by individual states. Based on current law, CMS has exclusive authority to investigate and discipline the marketing and selling of Medicare advantage products, while States have only been permitted to examine and enforce violations against individual insurance agents. This unusual arrangement, which some might call a pre-emption of authority, has left a sizable enforcement gap that has exacerbated the problems found by the committee. This legislation will close that gap, giving States the ability to standardize marketing and sales regulations, as well as regulate both agents and companies in the marketing and sales of Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans. Ultimately, State insurance commissioners will have the ability to work in conjunction with CMS in order to provide the most comprehensive protection possible for Medicare beneficiaries. Senior citizens deserve to have access to the health care plan that best serves their needs without having to worry about being purposely mislead and deceived. I believe we must repair this disconnect in oversight and ensure the protection of American seniors, and I hope my colleagues will join in my effort to do so. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.