Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Wisconsin's students and families. Students work hard to get into college. Along with their families, they are working even harder to pay for college. However, the high cost of college, combined with the slow growth of family income and insufficient grant aid is pricing many Wisconsin students out of a college education. Today help is on the way. To reverse this trend the Senate has acted on two bills that will significantly improve access to college and make a college education more affordable for students and families. The Higher Education Access Act will provide $17.3 billion in new aid to students, paid for through reforms to the student loan industry, and the Higher Education Amendments extends a variety of important programs, such as--work study, Perkins loans and TRIO. Both bills passed with strong bipartisan support and together, they represent a major victory for students and families. Wisconsin students will benefit from $32 million of new financial aid, including an increase in the maximum Pell award from $4,310 to $5,100 next school year. Pell-eligible students should expect an additional $430 in aid to help offset the cost of school. This legislation will also cap loan payments at 15 percent of a student's discretionary income, bringing needed relief to students from excessive loan burdens. Lastly, this bill provides loan forgiveness for students who choose careers in public service such as, nursing, teaching, or law enforcement for 10 years. The Senate has made college access and affordability a top priority. I am proud of the bipartisan way the Senate has acted to give students around the country access to college and a chance at a better and more productive life. I am proud to support this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Energy bill that passed with my support. The bill increases biofuels production from the current mandate of 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The bill also establishes new appliance and lighting efficiency standards in Government buildings and includes Federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. I was pleased that this bill included my very important NOPEC amendment, an amendment that passed with the support of 70 Senators. The NOPEC amendment will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit the supply or fix the price of oil in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. It will authorize the Justice Department--and only the Justice Department--to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. Further, it will give our Government a much needed tool to fight back against the selfish price-fixing conspiracy of OPEC members, a conspiracy that significantly raises the cost of gasoline and other essential energy products to millions consumers every day. I was also pleased that this 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. I was disappointed that the Energy bill didn't include provisions to require utilities to provide 15 percent of their electric power from renewable sources by 2020. The reduction in the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity would have strengthened our national energy security by diversifying our sources of electric generation. Also, the bill did not include an energy tax package that would have created incentives for renewable power, biofuels, plug-in hybrids, clean coal and other technologies. 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 to recognize Juneteenth Day, a yearly commemoration of the abolition of slavery in our country. As a nation we value and appreciate the freedom and independence Juneteenth Day represents. Historically, Juneteenth Day has been a celebration of our country's rich African-American heritage and has promoted awareness about the history of African American sacrifice. A great celebration took place on June 19, 1865, when slavery was finally abolished 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Fishing, festivals, barbecuing and baseball are just a few of the typical Juneteenth activities people enjoy today. Juneteenth has long been a day of education and enlightenment and often includes guest speakers and prayer services. I believe that observing Juneteeth Day is necessary to truly embrace the equality and freedom our country represents. We live in a culturally diverse nation and celebrations like Juneteenth Day encourage us to understand and respect the differences that make our country great. It is imperative that we continue the work of achieving racial and ethnic harmony and I am honored to acknowledge this important day. I commend the tremendous dedication of the people who participate in the annual Juneteenth Day celebrations.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and our 13 cosponsors in voting in favor of our OPEC amendment. This amendment will declare price fixing by the OPEC oil cartel illegal under our antitrust laws and will give our Government a much needed weapon to combat the illegal actions of the OPEC cartel that harms consumers every time they visit the gas pump. Contrary to the fears of the opponents of this amendment, this amendment will not harm either our foreign relations or foreign investment in the United States. Enforcement of NOPEC is reserved exclusively to the Justice Department. Should the administration deem it imprudent to take action against NOPEC, then it need not do so. It is long past time for us to have the ability, should our Government decide to do so, to take legal action to fight back against the OPEC conspiracy on behalf of American consumers. So I urge my colleagues to join 345 House Members who last month voted in huge numbers in favor of NOPEC. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I believe the arguments set forth by the administration, as well as those on the floor today in opposition to this bill, are without merit. For example, we disagree that it would harm U.S. interests overseas. The Justice Department has taken action to sue many foreign cartels that have engaged in price fixing, including, for example, the international vitamin cartel. There has been no retaliation against U.S. business interests abroad. Only 11 Nations in the world are members of the OPEC oil cartel. There would be no reason for any other Nation to retaliate against the United States for attempting to enforce this legislation. The idea that OPEC could strongly discourage investment in the U.S. economy is likewise speculative and without basis. The existence of strong U.S. antitrust laws for over a century, laws that are already reaching foreign conduct affecting the U.S. markets, has not discouraged investment in the United States. Further, and this is enormously important, this legislation does not require the administration to do anything. It simply gives them the authority to bring action in court against the OPEC oil cartel. It seems to me the legislation would have a constructive effect in bringing notice to the OPEC oil cartel that we do have recourse, should it be necessary, to move against them in retaliation of their fixing prices of oil at unreasonably high levels. That is why I believe this legislation should be passed by this body as it was passed by the House of Representatives. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise at this time with 13 cosponsors to urge all of my colleagues to support our bipartisan no-OPEC amendment to the Energy bill. This amendment will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. In addition to the 13 cosponsors of this amendment today, companion House legislation passed the other body last month by an overwhelming 345-to-72 vote. This amendment will authorize the Justice Department, and only the Justice Department, to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit supply or fix the price of oil. We have longed decried OPEC, but sadly no one in Government has yet tried to take any action. This amendment will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers, such as the OPEC nations, act together to restrict supply or to set prices, then they will be violating U.S. law. As we consider the high price of gas, one fact has remained consistent: the price of crude oil and, in turn, gasoline dances to the tune set by the OPEC members. Referring to the 18-percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices since the start of the year, OPEC's president commented: We did have a bad situation at the beginning of the year, but it is much better now. The difference was OPEC's decision last fall to enforce combined output cuts of 1.7 billion barrels of oil a day in order to drive up the price of crude oil. Just last week, OPEC refused to add more oil supply to the market despite the International Energy Agency's urgent call for new supplies to meet rising demand. While OPEC enjoys its newfound riches, the average American consumer suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill. Gas prices have now increased 71 cents a gallon just since the start of the year, to a current national average of $3.01 per gallon, an increase of more than 30 percent. The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the cost of crude oil. If private companies engaged in such an international price-fixing conspiracy, there would be no question it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations. The amendment will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Justice Department to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be at the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to whether to take action against OPEC. Our amendment will not require the Government to bring legal action against OPEC member nations. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the executive branch. I believe the Senate should now join the 345 of our colleagues in the House and vote to support this legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will yield several minutes to Senator Lincoln.

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

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I yield several minutes to Senator Lincoln. I am sorry, did the Senator from Rhode Island wish to speak?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be recognized to call up amendment No. 1519; that once the amendment is reported by number, I be recognized to speak in reference to the amendment; that the amendment then be set aside, and Senator DeMint then be recognized to call up his amendment No. 1546, and that once Senator DeMint concludes his statement, the amendment be set aside; and that prior to Senator DeMint being recognized, Senator Byrd be recognized to speak as in morning business; and that the DeMint amendment be called up after I conclude my remarks.

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

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

Mr. KOHL. Thank you very much, Madam President. Amendment No. 1519 to Amendment No. 1502 Today, Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment with Senators Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Biden, Snowe, Feingold, Coburn, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Lieberman, and Sanders, which will authorize our Government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on the price of oil and to hold OPEC accountable when it does act illegally. Our amendment will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition. Our amendment--identical to my NOPEC bill, S. 879; legislation that now has 14 cosponsors--will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This legislation has passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously four times since it was first introduced, including this April, and in 2005 passed the full Senate by voice vote as an amendment to that year's energy bill before being stripped from that bill in the conference committee. Last month, companion House legislation passed the other body by an overwhelming 345 to 72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this legislation into law and give our Nation a long-needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anticonsumer conspiracy. Throughout the last 2 years since we last considered this measure on the Senate floor, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas prices rise to previously unimagined levels. As crude oil prices exceeded $40, then $50, and then $60 per barrel, retail prices of gasoline over $3 per gallon have now become commonplace. While prices have temporarily receded from time to time, the general trend is consistently, and significantly, upwards. Gas prices have now increased 77 cents per gallon just since the start of the year to a national average of $3.07 per gallon, which is an increase of more than 30 percent. As we consider gas price changes, one fact has remained consistent-- any move downwards in price ends as soon as OPEC decides to cut production. Referring to the 18 percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices since the start of the year, OPEC President Mohammed al-Hamli commented ``we had a bad situation at the beginning of the year. It is much better now.'' The difference was OPEC's decision last fall to enforce combined output cuts of 1.7 million barrels of oil a day in order to drive up the price of crude oil. And while OPEC enjoys its newfound riches, the average American consumer suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill. The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is simply the result of changes in the cost of crude oil. So there is no doubt that the price of crude oil dances to the tune set by OPEC members. Such blatantly anticompetitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged in such an international price fixing conspiracy, there would be no question that it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations. For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in Government has yet tried to take any action. This amendment will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers such as the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, then they are violating U.S. law. The amendment will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will authorize the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. The suffering of consumers across the Nation in the last few years has made me and many others more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that our Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations. The Senate should now join with 345 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives and vote to add the NOPEC legislation to the Energy bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendment No. 1546 be called up.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take the time to recognize and honor Baraboo National Bank located in Baraboo, WI. This year, the bank celebrates 150 years as Baraboo's first and oldest bank. On July 15, 1857, Simeon Mills joined with Terrell Thomas to open Sauk County Bank, Wisconsin's 15th chartered bank, in a building just down the street from its present location. They began with $50,000 in operating capital and by the end of that year were well on their way to establishing a successful institution. By the early 1860s, the Sauk County Bank had grown their operating capital to break the $100,000 mark. A fire in their first location caused the bank to move into temporary quarters on the back of a lot purchased on the corner of Oak and Third Avenue. The new building would soon be built on this corner and stand until today. In 1873 the charter for Sauk County Bank changed and the bank renamed as First National Bank of Baraboo. For a 7-year period after the bank changed its name, banks in Wisconsin were financially stressed and many were closing across the State. However, through the actions taken by the principle officers and stockholders, the bank was able to avoid disaster. Otto Ringling came to the First National Bank of Baraboo and deposited a large sum of money to show his support for the bank. To show their appreciation, the bank would often send the Ringlings money when they needed help. The 1880s brought more prosperity to Sauk County and the bank grew well beyond its neighboring competitors to over $400,000 in assets. By this time the bank decided it was time for a name change. In doing so, was now called The Bank of Baraboo, which would remain for about 58 years. Baraboo was now the 25th largest city in the State. Industry and small businesses all over the county were helped by the bank to get their start. This included the Circus Industry. The Bank of Baraboo was a strong supporter of the Ringling and Gollmar Brother's Circus. When the Ringling brothers needed money to expand their circus in the 1900s, they turned to The Bank of Baraboo for help. Through the 1920s this bond grew to the point that a few of the Ringlings were appointed directors and became stock holders who were very loyal customers. In 1938 a final national bank charter changed the name from The Bank of Baraboo to The Baraboo National Bank. As banking products expanded, the bank was now able to provide more services to the community. They even had a minibank at the local Badger Army Ammunition Plan. The Baraboo National Bank continued to expand the building on the corner, taking in space to the south and to the west. In 1975, Merlin E. Zitzner became the eleventh president and CEO of The Baraboo National Bank. Zitzner, a Viroqua native, graduated from UW Whitewater and a graduate degree from UW Madison. Under this leadership The Baraboo Bancorporation Inc. was formed as the holding company of The Baraboo National Bank and later the State Bank of Viroqua and Green Lake State Bank. The Baraboo National Bank continued to grow by adding the Downtown Drive-up Bank branch, West Baraboo branch, East Baraboo branch, Southwest branch and opening the Lake Delton National Bank branch. Later would follow the acquisition of the Rock Springs and Bank of Wonewoc branches. Most recently the Reedsburg National Bank and the Portage National Bank where built as well as the acquisition of the two locations of the Northwoods National Bank in Rhinelander and Elcho. Today with assets nearing the $800,000,000 mark and a market share in Baraboo averaging 66 percent, The Baraboo National Bank has a lot to be thankful for. Customer loyalty going back for several generations and local businesses enjoying growth are what the bank is really all about.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act with Senators Domenici, McCaskill, Stabenow, Lincoln, Levin and Clinton. This bill is supported by the Elder Justice Coalition, the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, AARP and many other organizations dedicated to protecting our Nation's vulnerable citizens. If enacted, this legislation could help to prevent many of the tragic tales of physical and financial elder abuse that we hear about from our constituents and read about in our local newspapers. I strongly urge this Congress to do what the States cannot: create a nationwide system of background checks for workers who care for our Nation's frail elders and those who are living with disabilities. The vast majority of long-term care workers are selfless and dedicated. Yet there are a few with violent criminal histories who pose a clear threat to the defenseless individuals needing long-term care services. Under the disorganized, patchwork system of background checks that exists today, employers trying to hire caregivers do not always know which applicants have records of abuse or a history of committing violent crimes. As a result, predators are sometimes hired to take care of our most vulnerable citizens, allowing them to work in situations where they can cause enormous harm. For example, in just the last 6 weeks, three stories of such elder abuse created headlines across the country: Last year, Pat Torano, at the age of 89, was partially paralyzed by a stroke. He realized he no longer could care for his 95-year-old wife, who by then was blind and suffering from dementia. Intent on staying at home, the Toranos contracted with Visiting Angels, a network of private home- care agencies that matches clients with caretakers. They expected to find an honest professional to help them with household chores and other non-medical needs. Instead they got convicted felon Gina Treveno, who stole their house just five months later by tricking the couple into placing the deed in her name. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the sentencing of William Morrison, a former aide at the Rome Memorial Hospital Residential Health Care Facility, who was convicted last month of raping and sexually assaulting a 90- year-old resident of the nursing home. . . . The background check would have revealed that Morrison was previously convicted for one felony drug offense in 1992 and several misdemeanors in the 1990s. An 84-year-old man allegedly assaulted at a nursing home last month is suing the facility, claiming it failed to protect him from the employee accused of punching him in his bed. Earl Gates of Bozeman claims Evergreen Bozeman Health and Rehabilitation center didn't do a background check on his accused attacker, Joshua Fowler, 23, who has a prior assault conviction. The bill that I am introducing today with Senators Domenici, Stabenow, McCaskill, Lincoln, Levin, and Clinton proposes to take action to stop predators from working in all long-term care settings. It would close gaping loopholes in our current system of background checks through a nationwide expansion of a pilot program that Congress enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Under the MMA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been conducting a pilot program in seven states to implement efficient, equitable systems that cost-effectively screen out certain applicants for employment in long-term care facilities. Applicants excluded are those whose backgrounds include findings of substantiated abuse and/or a serious criminal history. The seven pilot States are Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin. These States have significant flexibility in several key areas under the grant. For example, each State establishes parameters for the definition of a ``direct patient access employee'' for workers who must be checked, and defines specific criteria for ``disqualifying'' crimes that prohibit a long-term care employer from hiring workers with such histories. In other areas, the pilot States must meet Federal standards. They must cover a broad range of long-term care providers, including nursing homes, home health agencies and intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. States must require each applicant to submit a written statement disclosing any disqualifying information, and to authorize a State and national criminal record check. As is currently required under Federal law, providers must search any available registry that is likely to contain disqualifying information about an applicant. Forty-one States already require a criminal background check of some variety, mostly at the State level. The pilot States have integrated their systems to coordinate these checks in a single streamlined process and added a Federal background check through the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Applicants who are subsequently found to have a record of substantiated abuse or a serious criminal history cannot be hired. But individuals who are denied employment can appeal the background check results. Finally, facilities can use the results of the background checks only for the purpose of determining suitability of employment. That is the basic structure of the pilot program that Congress enacted 4 years ago. Since then, we have learned important lessons from the pilot States' experiences. For example, federal funds have been used for a variety of purposes. States have used pilot funds to hire new staff to administer background checks; to purchase mobile digital scanners; to pay for the cost of fingerprint checks; to provide technical assistance to facilities; and to build online systems that applicants and providers can readily access, and which serve to integrate information from various registries and entities, and as storage and retrieval systems. States have passed legislation under the pilot program that treat disqualifying crimes somewhat differently. For example, Michigan has created a tiered system, under which certain disqualifying crimes carry time-limited prohibitions on working in long-term care facilities. By comparison, Wisconsin has chosen to enact legislation defining disqualifying crimes as those that carry a lifetime ban only. Alaska has established a ``variance'' process to permit certain individuals to work who have committed crimes but who have subsequently shown evidence of recovery. Similarly, in Idaho, some disqualifying crimes result in an ``unconditional'' denial that carries a lifetime ban on working in long-term care settings, while others result in ``conditional'' denials that apply to less serious crimes that may be waived under certain circumstances, following an ``exemption review'' by the Department of Health and Welfare. The data on results from the pilot programs are impressive. Among the seven States, Michigan's information is the most complete. In the first year of operation, Michigan excluded more than 3,000 people with records of abuse or a disqualifying criminal history. As of April 30, 2007, 625 of these were excluded through a fingerprint check. Twenty- five percent of these exclusions were identified through an FBI check only, a fact that State officials believe indicates that these individuals committed crimes in other States, or have been avoiding prosecution within the State. Information for Nevada, while less complete, suggests similar results. As of last December, Nevada was identifying an even higher percentage of individuals with criminal histories on the basis of an FBI check only. The director of Michigan's workforce background check program, Orlene Christie, recently testified before the Special Committee on Aging about the State's program. ``The applicants that have been excluded from employment are not the types of people Michigan could ever allow to work with our most vulnerable citizens,'' she said. ``We have prevented hardened criminals that otherwise would have access to our vulnerable population from employment.'' Ms. Christie also noted that ``of the criminal history reports examined, fraudulent activity and controlled substance violations account for 25 percent of all disqualifying crimes. Fraudulent activity includes such things as embezzlement, identity theft, and credit card fraud. This is particularly alarming giving the projected increase in financial abuse of the elderly.'' Importantly, Michigan has implemented a ``rap back'' system where the Michigan State Police notifies the health agency of any subsequent arrest, which in turn notifies the employer. This is a key component of the bill we are introducing today. It will allow the States, as well as the FBI, to ensure that an employer will be automatically notified as soon as a worker's criminal history record is updated. To find out what providers think of the pilot program, Idaho conducted a survey of participating facilities, which found 87 percent believed the background checks were successfully screening out workers who shouldn't be hired. Additionally, 63 percent said that the quality of employees hired has improved since the pilot began. The pilot program demonstrates that participating States are successfully excluding individuals who have a history of abuse or a disqualifying criminal background. If this model is expanded, the resulting nationwide system would greatly enhance the probability of identifying individuals with criminal backgrounds who can now easily escape detection. If all States had parallel, multi-level, comprehensive systems in place, very few potentially abusive workers would be hired into positions of caring for the extremely vulnerable residents of our Nation's long-term care facilities. The MMA pilot program is scheduled to end this September. I urge the Senate not to let this initiative simply expire. Rather, I hope that we will take the logical step of expanding on the success of this program, and provide limited federal funding for all other States to create similar programs. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act also lays out sensible standards for creating a nationwide system that will prevent predators, who now go undetected, from being hired into positions where they can harm society's most vulnerable people. I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues will join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act with Senators Domenici, McCaskill, Stabenow, Lincoln, Levin and Clinton. This bill is supported by the Elder Justice Coalition, the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, AARP and many other organizations dedicated to protecting our Nation's vulnerable citizens. If enacted, this legislation could help to prevent many of the tragic tales of physical and financial elder abuse that we hear about from our constituents and read about in our local newspapers. I strongly urge this Congress to do what the States cannot: create a nationwide system of background checks for workers who care for our Nation's frail elders and those who are living with disabilities. The vast majority of long-term care workers are selfless and dedicated. Yet there are a few with violent criminal histories who pose a clear threat to the defenseless individuals needing long-term care services. Under the disorganized, patchwork system of background checks that exists today, employers trying to hire caregivers do not always know which applicants have records of abuse or a history of committing violent crimes. As a result, predators are sometimes hired to take care of our most vulnerable citizens, allowing them to work in situations where they can cause enormous harm. For example, in just the last 6 weeks, three stories of such elder abuse created headlines across the country: Last year, Pat Torano, at the age of 89, was partially paralyzed by a stroke. He realized he no longer could care for his 95-year-old wife, who by then was blind and suffering from dementia. Intent on staying at home, the Toranos contracted with Visiting Angels, a network of private home- care agencies that matches clients with caretakers. They expected to find an honest professional to help them with household chores and other non-medical needs. Instead they got convicted felon Gina Treveno, who stole their house just five months later by tricking the couple into placing the deed in her name. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the sentencing of William Morrison, a former aide at the Rome Memorial Hospital Residential Health Care Facility, who was convicted last month of raping and sexually assaulting a 90- year-old resident of the nursing home. . . . The background check would have revealed that Morrison was previously convicted for one felony drug offense in 1992 and several misdemeanors in the 1990s. An 84-year-old man allegedly assaulted at a nursing home last month is suing the facility, claiming it failed to protect him from the employee accused of punching him in his bed. Earl Gates of Bozeman claims Evergreen Bozeman Health and Rehabilitation center didn't do a background check on his accused attacker, Joshua Fowler, 23, who has a prior assault conviction. The bill that I am introducing today with Senators Domenici, Stabenow, McCaskill, Lincoln, Levin, and Clinton proposes to take action to stop predators from working in all long-term care settings. It would close gaping loopholes in our current system of background checks through a nationwide expansion of a pilot program that Congress enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Under the MMA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been conducting a pilot program in seven states to implement efficient, equitable systems that cost-effectively screen out certain applicants for employment in long-term care facilities. Applicants excluded are those whose backgrounds include findings of substantiated abuse and/or a serious criminal history. The seven pilot States are Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin. These States have significant flexibility in several key areas under the grant. For example, each State establishes parameters for the definition of a ``direct patient access employee'' for workers who must be checked, and defines specific criteria for ``disqualifying'' crimes that prohibit a long-term care employer from hiring workers with such histories. In other areas, the pilot States must meet Federal standards. They must cover a broad range of long-term care providers, including nursing homes, home health agencies and intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. States must require each applicant to submit a written statement disclosing any disqualifying information, and to authorize a State and national criminal record check. As is currently required under Federal law, providers must search any available registry that is likely to contain disqualifying information about an applicant. Forty-one States already require a criminal background check of some variety, mostly at the State level. The pilot States have integrated their systems to coordinate these checks in a single streamlined process and added a Federal background check through the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Applicants who are subsequently found to have a record of substantiated abuse or a serious criminal history cannot be hired. But individuals who are denied employment can appeal the background check results. Finally, facilities can use the results of the background checks only for the purpose of determining suitability of employment. That is the basic structure of the pilot program that Congress enacted 4 years ago. Since then, we have learned important lessons from the pilot States' experiences. For example, federal funds have been used for a variety of purposes. States have used pilot funds to hire new staff to administer background checks; to purchase mobile digital scanners; to pay for the cost of fingerprint checks; to provide technical assistance to facilities; and to build online systems that applicants and providers can readily access, and which serve to integrate information from various registries and entities, and as storage and retrieval systems. States have passed legislation under the pilot program that treat disqualifying crimes somewhat differently. For example, Michigan has created a tiered system, under which certain disqualifying crimes carry time-limited prohibitions on working in long-term care facilities. By comparison, Wisconsin has chosen to enact legislation defining disqualifying crimes as those that carry a lifetime ban only. Alaska has established a ``variance'' process to permit certain individuals to work who have committed crimes but who have subsequently shown evidence of recovery. Similarly, in Idaho, some disqualifying crimes result in an ``unconditional'' denial that carries a lifetime ban on working in long-term care settings, while others result in ``conditional'' denials that apply to less serious crimes that may be waived under certain circumstances, following an ``exemption review'' by the Department of Health and Welfare. The data on results from the pilot programs are impressive. Among the seven States, Michigan's information is the most complete. In the first year of operation, Michigan excluded more than 3,000 people with records of abuse or a disqualifying criminal history. As of April 30, 2007, 625 of these were excluded through a fingerprint check. Twenty- five percent of these exclusions were identified through an FBI check only, a fact that State officials believe indicates that these individuals committed crimes in other States, or have been avoiding prosecution within the State. Information for Nevada, while less complete, suggests similar results. As of last December, Nevada was identifying an even higher percentage of individuals with criminal histories on the basis of an FBI check only. The director of Michigan's workforce background check program, Orlene Christie, recently testified before the Special Committee on Aging about the State's program. ``The applicants that have been excluded from employment are not the types of people Michigan could ever allow to work with our most vulnerable citizens,'' she said. ``We have prevented hardened criminals that otherwise would have access to our vulnerable population from employment.'' Ms. Christie also noted that ``of the criminal history reports examined, fraudulent activity and controlled substance violations account for 25 percent of all disqualifying crimes. Fraudulent activity includes such things as embezzlement, identity theft, and credit card fraud. This is particularly alarming giving the projected increase in financial abuse of the elderly.'' Importantly, Michigan has implemented a ``rap back'' system where the Michigan State Police notifies the health agency of any subsequent arrest, which in turn notifies the employer. This is a key component of the bill we are introducing today. It will allow the States, as well as the FBI, to ensure that an employer will be automatically notified as soon as a worker's criminal history record is updated. To find out what providers think of the pilot program, Idaho conducted a survey of participating facilities, which found 87 percent believed the background checks were successfully screening out workers who shouldn't be hired. Additionally, 63 percent said that the quality of employees hired has improved since the pilot began. The pilot program demonstrates that participating States are successfully excluding individuals who have a history of abuse or a disqualifying criminal background. If this model is expanded, the resulting nationwide system would greatly enhance the probability of identifying individuals with criminal backgrounds who can now easily escape detection. If all States had parallel, multi-level, comprehensive systems in place, very few potentially abusive workers would be hired into positions of caring for the extremely vulnerable residents of our Nation's long-term care facilities. The MMA pilot program is scheduled to end this September. I urge the Senate not to let this initiative simply expire. Rather, I hope that we will take the logical step of expanding on the success of this program, and provide limited federal funding for all other States to create similar programs. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act also lays out sensible standards for creating a nationwide system that will prevent predators, who now go undetected, from being hired into positions where they can harm society's most vulnerable people. I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues will join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, generation by generation, the face of America is always changing. In the next quarter of a century, the laugh lines of that face will deepen as the number of older Americans explodes. Today, those over 65 account for 12 percent of our population; in 2030, they will account for 20 percent. Academic experts, policy wonks, economists, and health care providers are conjecturing broadly about how this demographic wave will affect our society. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am listening carefully. It is the charge of the Aging Committee to plan accordingly for the challenges facing our seniors tomorrow and to tackle the problems confronting them today. Older American Month, which occurs each May, gives us an opportunity to highlight these issues but let me assure you that it is impossible to relegate senior issues into one neat category, and soon it will be impossible to confine our attention to them to just 1 month. Nearly every issue dealt with by Congress affects older Americans, or is affected by them, in a unique way. From emergency preparedness to broadcast technology, from the size of the labor force to regulation of corporate marketing practices, these issues are worthy of our attention from the older person's perspective. Then there are, of course, the more obvious challenges ahead of us, such as preserving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and improving long-term care. In the last 5 months alone, the Aging Committee has held hearings on a myriad of matters that are of vital concern to seniors. We have examined health care coverage for America's poorest seniors under Medicare Part D's low-income subsidy. We heard from the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve about the impact that millions of retiring baby boomers will have on our Nation's economy, and we learned about how best to retain and cater to the needs of older workers. We have deliberated on the progress made by the nursing home industry over the last 20 years, as well as what currently needs to be done about the most neglectful, decrepit homes. Our investigative unit has shone a bright light on the shameful, deceptive sales tactics employed by certain providers of private Medicare Advantage plans. We have put forth compelling evidence for the continuation of SeniorCare, Wisconsin's highly efficient drug coverage program, in spite of the administration's desire to terminate it. And, I couldn't be more pleased to say, we worked with the rest of the Wisconsin delegation and in collaboration with Governor Jim Doyle to find a legislative fix to save SeniorCare, extending the program through December 31, 2009. As demonstrated by the work I have described, it is easy to see that protecting seniors--whether from fraud, poverty, or mistreatment--is a priority for the Aging Committee. However, it is also our priority to enable them. Though older Americans are often considered to be a vulnerable segment of the population, in many ways senior citizens strengthen our society. America's seniors have had decades to master skills and garner accomplishments, often rendering them our best leaders and innovators. A lot of them are out in the forefront of professional fields, staying active within community and family life in various capacities, and leading by example. The aging of America will affect every part our society, and it will touch every family in decades to come. We reap the benefits of the continued contributions of older Americans, and in return they deserve the best quality of life our Nation can afford them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I honor the late Milwaukee jazz legend, Tony King. Mr. Tony King was an inspiration and mentor to all of his students during his tenure as teacher and director of the jazz program at the Wisconsin Conservatory of Music in downtown Milwaukee. As an accomplished pianist, he not only applied his talent to share beautiful music with the world, but also dedicated himself to help foster the talent of young musicians. Mr. King recognized the potential and skill of his students and guided them with respect, care, and humility. Mr. King's life and legacy will be celebrated this Memorial Day weekend in Milwaukee at the Second Annual Wisconsin Jazz and Heritage Festival at Jamie's Club Theatre. Mr. King's historic contributions to the jazz community in Wisconsin are reflected in the lives and accomplishments of his former students who will return to Milwaukee and perform in his honor. Many teachers hope they have an impact on their students' lives and the community in which they taught. Mr. King's impact will be remembered this weekend in Milwaukee with sounds of happiness, laughter, and the music that he loved so much.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Housing Assistance Council Authorization Act. This legislation 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 bill provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and then $15 million in fiscal year 2009-2014. 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 homeownership opportunities needed to serve the population. There are several Federal programs that are aimed at developing affordable housing and economic opportunities in rural communities in both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture. However, over the past 6 years, funding for these programs has been reduced by 20 percent. For the fiscal year 2008 budget, the administration proposed to eliminate $1.3 billion in rural housing assistance. In many regions Federal funding might be the only assistance available for housing and economic development. The Housing Assistance Council is yet another tool that rural communities can utilize when trying to develop affordable housing. 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 am very honored to work with Senator Snowe this legislation. Its passage will allow every State to better serve the needs of the people living in rural areas. I look forward to Working with my colleagues to ensure the adoption of this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Housing Assistance Council Authorization Act. This legislation 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 bill provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and then $15 million in fiscal year 2009-2014. 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 homeownership opportunities needed to serve the population. There are several Federal programs that are aimed at developing affordable housing and economic opportunities in rural communities in both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture. However, over the past 6 years, funding for these programs has been reduced by 20 percent. For the fiscal year 2008 budget, the administration proposed to eliminate $1.3 billion in rural housing assistance. In many regions Federal funding might be the only assistance available for housing and economic development. The Housing Assistance Council is yet another tool that rural communities can utilize when trying to develop affordable housing. 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 am very honored to work with Senator Snowe this legislation. Its passage will allow every State to better serve the needs of the people living in rural areas. I look forward to Working with my colleagues to ensure the adoption of this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I wish today, on National Police Week, to honor this Nation's law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers are some of the bravest men and women we will ever come across. They selflessly dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe and taking dangerous individuals off our streets. Tragically, some of those officers lose their lives while on duty. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial currently bears the names of more than 17,500 officers who have been killed or died while on duty. This week, 382 additional names will be added. Two of those fallen officers are from my home State of Wisconsin. Jackie Ryden dedicated his life to law enforcement, spending 33 years with the Ellsworth Police Department, the Pierce County Sheriff's Department, and the Prescott Police Department. He was a well-liked and well-respected member of the police force, as well as his community. On September 2, 2006, Jackie responded to a natural gas explosion and the resulting fire. He helped to evacuate a number of local citizens from their homes. Shortly after Officer Ryden returned to his patrol car to help direct traffic, he suffered a heart attack and died. According to those who knew him best, he passed away doing what he loved best--serving and protecting his community. Jackie Ryden is survived by his wife, two children, and three grandchildren. The second officer whom I seek to honor today is Stephen Hahn. Stephen was a special deputy with the Eau Claire County Sheriff's Office, serving approximately 40 years in law enforcement. Mr. Hahn was killed in a traffic accident while transporting an inmate. A vehicle heading in the opposite direction lost control and struck the van being driven by Deputy Hahn. He is survived by his wife and two children. We mourn the loss of these two great, brave men and attempt to honor them by recognizing the sacrifices they made for the benefit of others. Both of their communities, and the State of Wisconsin as a whole, are worse off because of the loss of these two public safety officers. I am pleased, however, that their names are being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, so they can forever be remembered for their hard work and dedication to improving the lives of those around them.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on a food safety amendment that has been accepted on both sides. Under current law, the FDA's most decisive legal recourse for dealing with suspect food imports is to stop them at our boarder. My amendment strengthens the FDA's hand by providing explicit authority under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, to proactively deny entry of all food products from questionable suppliers if they fail to cooperate and allow timely inspection of their facilities. Events of recent weeks have made clear that the FDA's ability to inspect foreign food is inadequate. In the case of melamine tainted wheat gluten from China, FDA inspectors were forced to wait more than 2 weeks before the Chinese Government would grant them access. Two weeks is unacceptable. There is simply no excuse for such delays if you want to ship food into this country. FDA must be able to respond quickly to identify threats and protect public health and safety. My amendment provides a succinct and direct legal basis for the FDA to seek access and inspect foreign food facilities on demand. If a foreign exporter to the United States delays access for FDA inspectors unnecessarily, the FDA can stop all food imports from that firm immediately thereby denying them access to our markets. If an exporter does not want to let the FDA inspect its firm--on FDA's schedule--that exporter can't ship to this country. It is that simple. For the vast majority of firms and countries, this is not a problem. But for those times it is needed, it will be an important tool. This amendment will not fix all of the problems that are out there. This Congress needs to do some thorough oversight and develop a comprehensive plan to improve food safety and security. I intend to participate in that process and will exercise my prerogatives as chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to see that the FDA follows through. Again, I appreciate the help of Senators Kennedy and Enzi and their talented staff in getting this amendment included in this bill. They have been very helpful, and I look forward to providing them any assistance they need in order to keep this in conference. amendment no. 993

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to make a correction to the record. Earlier today, I erroneously named Senator Leahy as a cosponsor of my amendment No. 991. Senator Leahy is not a cosponsor of this amendment. I thank the chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment, amendment No. 991, and I ask for its immediate consideration.