Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that will greatly affect our Nation's aging population, workforce, and economy: the need to expand opportunities for older Americans to continue working into their later years if they so choose. As older Americans live longer and healthier lives, many are planning to work longer. According to a recent survey, 80 percent of baby boomers expect to work past traditional retirement age. Some may recognize the physical and mental benefits of work, while some may need the additional income to remain financially secure. Whatever the reason people decide to stay on the job, it's time to change the way our Nation thinks about retirement. A one-size-fits-all retirement will no longer match the very different plans that seniors and baby boomers have for their later years. Rethinking retirement is also vital to our Nation's economic future. By 2030, businesses could face a labor force shortage of 35 million workers, and the projected slowdown in labor force growth could translate into lower economic growth and living standards. However, we can soften the potentially serious impact of these trends if we develop policies that expand opportunities for older Americans to work longer. Today, we are taking a first step by introducing The Older Worker Opportunity Act. This legislation addresses a variety of issues that affect older workers and employers: workplace flexibility, pensions, health insurance coverage, job training, and caregiving needs. Back in April, as ranking member of the Aging Committee, I chaired a hearing on older workers which identified barriers and disincentives to working longer. This legislation specifically targets those. First, today's workplace rarely offers flexible and part-time work arrangements for older workers. Most older workers would choose to work past traditional retirement age, but would prefer to gradually transition into retirement instead of fully retiring at a traditional retirement age. To encourage employers to offer flexible and part-time work arrangements, we propose a tax credit for employers that give their older workers such opportunities while protecting them from the loss of health or pension benefits. Our aim is to encourage more workplace flexibility, which would benefit both older workers and employers through increased productivity and job retention. Second, the bill provides an extra safety net for older workers who reduce their work but whose employers do not keep them on their health plan. In those cases, of course, the employer would not qualify for the tax credit we are offering. However, we would extend COBRA coverage from 18 to 36 months for their workers from the age of 62 until they are eligible for Medicare. Third, one major reason why older workers exit the workforce is the need to care for aging family members. Older workers who are also caregivers often face a significant loss of earnings and retirement income, and their employers lose up to $29 billion per year in lost work time and productivity. To help older workers balance the demands of work and caregiving, and to help employers by increasing productivity and reducing turnover costs, we propose expanding the dependent care credit to cover the care of chronically ill family members. Fourth, as GAO has found, job training programs are often discouraged from enrolling older workers because their effectiveness is measured in part by participants' earnings. Older workers tend to seek part-time work and receive lower earnings when they get new jobs. As a result, older workers do not have access to the training services they need to develop their technological skills and increase their productivity. We propose adjusting older workers' lower earnings when measuring the success of job training programs in order to more accurately reflect the value of job training programs to the older workforce. We also ask states to collect more data on the success of our current job training programs in meeting the unique needs of older workers. Fifth, it is clear that the barriers this bill addresses are not the only barriers facing older workers. This bill is just the beginning. Therefore, we propose a ``Task Force on Older Workers,'' composed of experts from all relevant federal agencies, to further identify barriers and disincentives in current law, and recommend solutions. We face an historic challenge, and with it, an historic opportunity. We need a 21st century workplace that is a win-win for both older workers and their employers--and an effective strategy for retaining our competitive advantage against other countries facing the same demographic tidal wave. We need to usher in a new age of work and retirement in which seniors are not limited to a choice between one or the other. We need to empower seniors to make the continued contributions we all know they can to our economy and our communities. Many older Americans and employers have already begun to pave the way. More older Americans are willing and able to continue making a contribution to the workplace and our economy, and more employers are beginning to recognize the value of older workers. We must incorporate this new mindset into our national culture, and develop policies that reflect this reality. Our seniors deserve it, and our economic future may well depend on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and that the attached letters of endorsement also be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that will greatly affect our Nation's aging population, workforce, and economy: the need to expand opportunities for older Americans to continue working into their later years if they so choose. As older Americans live longer and healthier lives, many are planning to work longer. According to a recent survey, 80 percent of baby boomers expect to work past traditional retirement age. Some may recognize the physical and mental benefits of work, while some may need the additional income to remain financially secure. Whatever the reason people decide to stay on the job, it's time to change the way our Nation thinks about retirement. A one-size-fits-all retirement will no longer match the very different plans that seniors and baby boomers have for their later years. Rethinking retirement is also vital to our Nation's economic future. By 2030, businesses could face a labor force shortage of 35 million workers, and the projected slowdown in labor force growth could translate into lower economic growth and living standards. However, we can soften the potentially serious impact of these trends if we develop policies that expand opportunities for older Americans to work longer. Today, we are taking a first step by introducing The Older Worker Opportunity Act. This legislation addresses a variety of issues that affect older workers and employers: workplace flexibility, pensions, health insurance coverage, job training, and caregiving needs. Back in April, as ranking member of the Aging Committee, I chaired a hearing on older workers which identified barriers and disincentives to working longer. This legislation specifically targets those. First, today's workplace rarely offers flexible and part-time work arrangements for older workers. Most older workers would choose to work past traditional retirement age, but would prefer to gradually transition into retirement instead of fully retiring at a traditional retirement age. To encourage employers to offer flexible and part-time work arrangements, we propose a tax credit for employers that give their older workers such opportunities while protecting them from the loss of health or pension benefits. Our aim is to encourage more workplace flexibility, which would benefit both older workers and employers through increased productivity and job retention. Second, the bill provides an extra safety net for older workers who reduce their work but whose employers do not keep them on their health plan. In those cases, of course, the employer would not qualify for the tax credit we are offering. However, we would extend COBRA coverage from 18 to 36 months for their workers from the age of 62 until they are eligible for Medicare. Third, one major reason why older workers exit the workforce is the need to care for aging family members. Older workers who are also caregivers often face a significant loss of earnings and retirement income, and their employers lose up to $29 billion per year in lost work time and productivity. To help older workers balance the demands of work and caregiving, and to help employers by increasing productivity and reducing turnover costs, we propose expanding the dependent care credit to cover the care of chronically ill family members. Fourth, as GAO has found, job training programs are often discouraged from enrolling older workers because their effectiveness is measured in part by participants' earnings. Older workers tend to seek part-time work and receive lower earnings when they get new jobs. As a result, older workers do not have access to the training services they need to develop their technological skills and increase their productivity. We propose adjusting older workers' lower earnings when measuring the success of job training programs in order to more accurately reflect the value of job training programs to the older workforce. We also ask states to collect more data on the success of our current job training programs in meeting the unique needs of older workers. Fifth, it is clear that the barriers this bill addresses are not the only barriers facing older workers. This bill is just the beginning. Therefore, we propose a ``Task Force on Older Workers,'' composed of experts from all relevant federal agencies, to further identify barriers and disincentives in current law, and recommend solutions. We face an historic challenge, and with it, an historic opportunity. We need a 21st century workplace that is a win-win for both older workers and their employers--and an effective strategy for retaining our competitive advantage against other countries facing the same demographic tidal wave. We need to usher in a new age of work and retirement in which seniors are not limited to a choice between one or the other. We need to empower seniors to make the continued contributions we all know they can to our economy and our communities. Many older Americans and employers have already begun to pave the way. More older Americans are willing and able to continue making a contribution to the workplace and our economy, and more employers are beginning to recognize the value of older workers. We must incorporate this new mindset into our national culture, and develop policies that reflect this reality. Our seniors deserve it, and our economic future may well depend on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and that the attached letters of endorsement also be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I joined my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, in supporting the Community Services Block Grant, CSBG. The continuing resolution before the Senate contains the House-passed funding level for CSBG, $320 million. This is a 50 percent cut from both the fiscal year 2005 level of funding and the Senate Appropriations Committee supported level. CSBG funds can be used in a variety of ways to help low-income families make ends meet. I have heard from several agencies in Wisconsin who rely on this funding to provide a range of services, from job training to housing, to low-income families and individuals in their communities. These agencies have told me, in no uncertain terms, that a cut of this magnitude to CSBG would require them to cut actual programming aimed at reducing poverty for families and the elderly. This means a cut to programs such as the Skills Enhancement Project in Outagamie County, which provides skills training to low-income workers so that they may compete for higher paying jobs. Similarly, the Home Buyers Assistance Program, which aims to increase homeownership among low-income families, would have to narrow the number of families served if the CR was passed without additional funding for CSBG. CSBG funding plays a similarly important role throughout my State. The West Central Wisconsin Community Action Agency, West CAP, which provides a range of supports for low-income families and individuals, relies on this funding to provide ``hardship relief'' programs, affordable housing, food pantry services and job training. West CAP has made it clear that this cut to CSBG couldn't come at a worse time, a time when they are seeing increases in the use of food pantries, steep increases in the pricing of basic needs, and dramatic increases in the costs of gasoline and home heating fuels, which particularly impact on low-income individuals. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment to restore funding to CSBG. At a time when Katrina and Rita have focused our Nation's attention on the needs of low-income families, it is unconscionable that Congress would turn its back, by cutting CSBG. With this amendment we had a chance to set it right.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Judge Roberts came before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month as a very well respected judge with a sterling academic record and a remarkable legal career. He left the Judiciary Committee with that reputation intact, if not enhanced. I have enormous respect for Judge Roberts' legal talents. They are undeniable. As a result, I supported his nomination last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is for this reason, his distinguished career and his sterling reputation as a lawyer and a judge, that I will vote my hopes today and not my fears and support Judge Roberts' nomination for Chief Justice of the United States. During a private meeting with him, as well as through four impressive days of testimony, Judge Roberts made clear that he will be a modest judge. He assures us that he will address each case on its merits and approach each argument with an open mind. He recognized that judges should not substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress, and I agree. Judge Roberts sees a clear boundary to the judge's role. He told us repeatedly that his personal views about issues did not matter. He assured us that he will not be an activist; and that he will rarely, if ever, look to overturn precedent. Rather, precedent, not his version of how the law should be, will mark the beginning of his constitutional analysis. Judge Roberts recognizes a right to privacy in the Constitution, and he understands that people have come to rely on it. He made clear his agreement with the cases on the right to privacy that led to the Court's decisions in Roe and Casey. Judge Roberts rejected ``originalist'' or a ``literalist'' philosophies. He does not bind the Constitution to narrow interpretations of the past. Too many judicial activists have used this philosophy to limit our rights and freedoms. Judge Roberts believes that as society evolves, our interpretation of the Constitution must evolve with it. We choose to take Judge Roberts at his word, and believe that those words will bind him throughout his tenure on the Court. Ultimately, Judge Roberts persuaded us that he will be the Chief Justice we saw during his hearing, not the Chief Justice that his critics see in his past. Nonetheless, the decision was not an easy one. While I support moderation in judicial temperament, I do not support inaction in the face of injustice. I worry that a Court full of neutral umpires would not have decided Brown v. Board of Education or other cases in which the Court moved America forward. Modesty is to be respected to a point, but not when it stands in the way of progress. Historically, the courts have often succeeded when our democratically-elected branches could not. However, Judge Roberts testified, and I do not disagree, that his confirmation to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist will not radically shift the balance of the Court. If he had been nominated, as he was originally, to replace Justice O'Connor then his confirmation would have moved the Court to the right. That would have been a much more difficult decision. It is my hope that the White House recognizes this concern when they choose their next nominee. In considering my decision, I was troubled by parts of Judge Roberts' record, but I was impressed by the man himself. I will support him as a Chief Justice who will keep an open mind and reject ideological extremism and simplistic approaches to interpreting the Constitution. I will vote my hopes and not my fears.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I thank Senator Bennett once again for his hard work and expert managing of this bill. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to continuing to work together as we conference this bill with the House. I also publicly and sincerely thank John Ziolkowski, Fitz Elder, Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, and Stacy McBride on his staff for their hard work and dedication. They exhibited professionalism and a strong work ethic throughout this entire process, and worked seamlessly with my staff--something I am constantly reminded of as a rare occurrence in what can be an incredibly partisan place. I look forward to continuing this strong spirit of cooperation.

Mr. KOHL. I join my distinguished colleagues from Mississippi and Montana. Providing emergency funds for the food assistance programs in this country is desperately required. Americans in the gulf, as well as my home State of Wisconsin, should be provided the food assistance that they need. Congress must act to address the essential needs of these Americans by ensuring that the Nation's food banks, emergency feeding and other food assistance organizations have the resources they require.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the second degree.

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

Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank you.

Mr. KOHL. I, too, would also like to join in on the discussion of this matter.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1818, which is at the desk, on behalf of Senator Dodd.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the modification and adoption of the amendment as modified.

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

Mr. KOHL. I concur with my colleague from Utah, and will also work with him to have this program addressed in conference.

Mr. KOHL. Yes, Senator Murray. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I will work with my colleagues in conference to support your request and include language in the final report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator DeWine.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have worked a great deal with my friend from Ohio on international hunger issues and encourage my colleagues to support his amendment. I also ask that I and Senator Chambliss be added as cosponsors.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. In recent weeks, we have witnessed disaster and hunger and displacement on our own shores. Those images are compelling. They remind us that hunger and displacement and enormous human need are chronic conditions in many parts of the world. For the people living in these circumstances, U.S. food aid is as important as it has ever been. I hope this amendment forces policymakers to rethink and recommit themselves to international hunger relief. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the world has lost one of the great crusaders for justice, Simon Wiesenthal. After suffering through many Nazi death camps, he emerged from the war with a mission to bring the architects of the Holocaust and their collaborators to account for their crimes. Later in life his work was valuable for establishing the facts of the Holocaust and keeping the memory of the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust alive. Simon Wiesenthal was a valuable voice of conscience when many around the world wanted to ignore these horrible crimes and forget this awful period of the 20th century. A successful Ukrainian architect before the war, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, he was rounded up with his family and narrowly escaped death. He would spend the rest of the war in a variety of death and work camps. After the war he was eager to work with the Americans to bring Nazis and their collaborators to justice for their war crimes during the Holocaust. When the Allies seemed to tire of bringing former members of the Third Reich to justice, Simon Wiesenthal continued his work on his own, painstakingly researching and identifying members of the Gestapo and SS. He may be most famously known as the man who found Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of Hitler's campaign to eradicate the Jews. Bringing Eichmann to justice was no doubt the most high profile of his successes, and he was able to use that spotlight to help him find and ferret out more criminals. In all he was involved in over 1,100 cases involving Nazi war criminals. Mr. Wiesenthal did more than just round up the perpetrators of the most notorious mass killing in history. He also used his name recognition to fight against rising anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world. He sounded the alarm over rising neo-Nazi movements, and fought against their malicious influence. His work documenting the Holocaust and the testimony of survivors was ground breaking and has formed am important part of what we know about that tragic period and the people who survived it. Mr. Wiesenthal has been seen as an important voice of justice, forcing the world to face a difficult reality about the evil in humans. His work laid bare the worst that man is capable of, but it also showed the importance of justice and the power of the human spirit.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennett very much for the sentiments expressed, which are felt similarly by myself and people who are working with me. On the question of Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig and others in specialty crops, as you have indicated, we all understand how important this program is across the country, not only in California and in Idaho but in other States, as well. I am aware the House bill includes funding. I will join with Senator Bennett and we will do everything we can to adopt the House level in conference.