Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I understand that it is not the intent of paragraph (6)(C) of this new section 129(l) of the Truth in Lending Act to include regular periodic mortgage insurance premiums that are paid after the closing date in meaning of ``points and fees payable in connection with the loan.''

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator very much. I agree with the Senator. sc accredited investors

Mr. KOHL

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. KOHL. I joined the Senate Banking Committee about a year and a half ago, shortly after failures on Wall Street forced a taxpayer bailout. Bear Stearns, AIG, and other pillars of our economy had collapsed, and we learned that our financial system was built on a foundation of sand. The crisis on Wall Street hit Wisconsin households hard. Families lost their homes, workers lost their jobs, and retirees lost their life savings. Seventy years ago Congress reacted aggressively to our gravest economic crisis, and put us on the road to prosperity by creating new regulations and institutions that avoided a meltdown for generations. By creating agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and establishing margin requirements, the Federal Government helped put the markets back on track. We are now called on to set up rules to put our economy on the right track just like we did in the 1930s. For over a year, the Senate Banking Committee held hearings to study the financial crisis. We know that the conditions that led to this mess did not occur suddenly in 2008, and these problems cannot be fixed overnight. Wall Street needs accountability and transparency to avoid future financial meltdowns. The legislation we are considering takes vital steps to end ``too big to fail,'' bring unregulated shadow markets into the light, and make our financial system work better for everyone. This bill protects Main Street jobs by focusing on Wall Street, where the crisis began. Community banks and credit unions have continued to act responsibly, and should not be subject to new layers of regulation that will impede their business. The bill also protects consumers, and I would like to thank Senator Akaka for working with me on the consumer protections in title XII of this bill. This title will help mainstream financial institutions make small loans on affordable terms to people who are currently limited to riskier choices like payday loans. This title will also help Americans get bank accounts, and encourages banks to offer financial education to their customers. I would also like to thank my friend and Chairman Chris Dodd for his leadership on this legislation. Fixing our financial system is a complex challenge, and Chairman Dodd has worked tirelessly to get this done right. He has been called upon to do so much in this Congress, and he has done it all with fairness, wisdom, and good humor. We will miss his steady hand in the future. I hope the Senate will continue to work in a bipartisan manner to complete this important bill. Our economy is slowly recovering from a devastating shock, and we must ensure that our progress is built on a more secure foundation. Continuing business as usual on Wall Street is not an option. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to speak about amendment No. 3788, an amendment essential to protecting consumers. As we work to rein in the excesses of Wall Street and shore up our economy, we must do all that we can to ensure consumers can get discount prices from retail stores at the very time when they need them the most. My amendment will restore the nearly century old rule that made it illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a price below which a retailer could not sell a product--a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing.'' This rule was overturned in June 2007 by a narrow 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the Leegin case. My amendment is identical to the Discount Pricing Consumer Act--a bill which has 10 cosponsors and passed the Judiciary Committee last month. Our bill has been endorsed by 39 State attorneys general, the leading consumer groups, as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky. For 96 years until the Leegin decision the rules were clear. Manufacturers could not set a retail price, and retailers could not be prevented from discounting. Millions of consumers saw the benefits of discount prices every day. Thousands of retailers all across the country were able to discount their products and sell their goods at the most competitive prices. Many credit the ban on vertical price fixing with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants-- stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices. But the consequences of the Leegin decision should worry all of us. Allowing manufacturers to set retail prices threatens the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and leads to higher prices for consumers. In his dissenting opinion in Leegin, Justice Breyer cited economic studies that estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, retail bills would average $750 to $1,000 higher for the average family of four every year. And the experience of the last 3 years since the Leegin decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. The Wall Street Journal has reported that more than 5,000 companies have implemented minimum pricing policies. Internet monitors scour the Web at the behest of manufacturers to prevent discounting. And there have been many reports of everything from consumer electronics and video games to baby products and toys, rental cars and bathtubs being subject to minimum retail pricing policies. My amendment is quite simple and direct--it merely returns us to the state of the law the day before Leegin was decided. It would simply add one sentence to section 1 of the Sherman Act--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. Instead of the complexity of the ``rule of reason'' announced by Leegin, we will once again have a simple and clear legal rule banning vertical price fixing--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day. In the last 50 years, 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. My amendment 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 amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act. This legislation makes permanent a critical component of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, set to expire on June 22, which encourages participation in the Antitrust Division's leniency program. As a result, the Justice Department will be able to continue to detect, investigate and aggressively prosecute price-fixing cartels which harm consumers. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has long considered criminal cartel enforcement a top priority, and its Corporate Leniency Policy is an important tool in that enforcement. Criminal antitrust offenses are generally conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets of customers. The Leniency Policy creates incentives for corporations to report their unlawful cartel conduct to the Division, by offering the possibility of immunity from criminal charges to the first-reporting corporation, as long as there is full cooperation. For more than 15 years, this policy has allowed the Division to uncover cartels affecting billions of dollars worth of commerce here in the United States, which has led to prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences. An important part of the Division's Leniency Policy, added by the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, limits the civil liability of leniency participants to the actual damages caused by that company--rather than triple the damages caused by the entire conspiracy, which is typical in civil antitrust lawsuits. This removed a significant disincentive to participation in the leniency program--the concern that, despite immunity from criminal charges, a participating corporation might still be on the hook for treble damages in any future antitrust lawsuits. Maintaining strong incentives to make use of the Leniency Policy provides important benefits to the victims of antitrust offenses, often consumers who paid artificially high prices. It makes it more likely that criminal antitrust violations will be reported and, as a result, consumers will be able to identify and recover their losses from paying illegally inflated prices. The policy also requires participants to cooperate with plaintiffs in any follow-on civil lawsuits, which makes it more likely that the plaintiff consumers will be able to build strong cases against all members of the conspiracy. Since the passage of ACPERA, the Antitrust Division has uncovered a number of significant cartel cases through its leniency program, including the air cargo investigation, which so far has yielded over a billion dollars in criminal fines. In that investigation, several airlines pled guilty to conspiring to fix international air cargo rates and international passenger fuel surcharges. Not only were criminal fines levied but one high-ranking executive pled guilty and agreed to serve 8 months in prison. In fiscal year 2004, before the passage of ACPERA, criminal antitrust fines totaled $350 million. Criminal antitrust fines in fiscal year 2009 surpassed $1 billion. Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division, has stated that the damages limitation has made its Corporate Leniency Program ``even more effective'' at detecting and prosecuting cartels. In fact, in the first 5 years after passage, leniency applications increased by 25 percent, and the Antitrust Division experienced ``unprecedented'' success in criminal enforcement. ACPERA's damages limitation is set to expire in June, so we must act quickly to extend it. Otherwise, the Justice Department will lose an important tool that it uses to investigate and prosecute criminal cartel activity. The strong evidence that this program works means it is time to make it permanent. Permanence will give all parties--the government, potential amnesty applicants, and potential private litigants--a clear sign that criminal cartel enforcement continues to be a top priority, and that the amnesty program is a key and continuing component of that enforcement program. This certainty is likely to lead to increased participation in the amnesty program, the discovery of more cases, the receipt of more criminal fines, and a higher likelihood of consumers being able to recover their losses in civil litigation. Some have raised questions about whether the leniency program could be made more effective by changing the requirements for leniency applicants to cooperate in private litigation, or by increasing the incentive for whistleblowing. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to show that changes are needed and the Department of Justice is concerned that any changes could have the unintended consequence of reducing the incentives to use the Leniency Program. Therefore, at this time we are hesitant to tinker with success. However, in response to the concerns, the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act of 2010 requires a GAO study to consider the effectiveness of the incentives for leniency applicants to cooperate in private litigation, and specifically whether such cooperation is made in a timely fashion. The Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 is meant to facilitate both government and private enforcement of the antitrust laws, and the GAO study will shed some light on whether it strikes the correct balance. When we receive the study, we will review it and act accordingly, changing the law if necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act. This legislation makes permanent a critical component of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, set to expire on June 22, which encourages participation in the Antitrust Division's leniency program. As a result, the Justice Department will be able to continue to detect, investigate and aggressively prosecute price-fixing cartels which harm consumers. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has long considered criminal cartel enforcement a top priority, and its Corporate Leniency Policy is an important tool in that enforcement. Criminal antitrust offenses are generally conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets of customers. The Leniency Policy creates incentives for corporations to report their unlawful cartel conduct to the Division, by offering the possibility of immunity from criminal charges to the first-reporting corporation, as long as there is full cooperation. For more than 15 years, this policy has allowed the Division to uncover cartels affecting billions of dollars worth of commerce here in the United States, which has led to prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences. An important part of the Division's Leniency Policy, added by the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, limits the civil liability of leniency participants to the actual damages caused by that company--rather than triple the damages caused by the entire conspiracy, which is typical in civil antitrust lawsuits. This removed a significant disincentive to participation in the leniency program--the concern that, despite immunity from criminal charges, a participating corporation might still be on the hook for treble damages in any future antitrust lawsuits. Maintaining strong incentives to make use of the Leniency Policy provides important benefits to the victims of antitrust offenses, often consumers who paid artificially high prices. It makes it more likely that criminal antitrust violations will be reported and, as a result, consumers will be able to identify and recover their losses from paying illegally inflated prices. The policy also requires participants to cooperate with plaintiffs in any follow-on civil lawsuits, which makes it more likely that the plaintiff consumers will be able to build strong cases against all members of the conspiracy. Since the passage of ACPERA, the Antitrust Division has uncovered a number of significant cartel cases through its leniency program, including the air cargo investigation, which so far has yielded over a billion dollars in criminal fines. In that investigation, several airlines pled guilty to conspiring to fix international air cargo rates and international passenger fuel surcharges. Not only were criminal fines levied but one high-ranking executive pled guilty and agreed to serve 8 months in prison. In fiscal year 2004, before the passage of ACPERA, criminal antitrust fines totaled $350 million. Criminal antitrust fines in fiscal year 2009 surpassed $1 billion. Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division, has stated that the damages limitation has made its Corporate Leniency Program ``even more effective'' at detecting and prosecuting cartels. In fact, in the first 5 years after passage, leniency applications increased by 25 percent, and the Antitrust Division experienced ``unprecedented'' success in criminal enforcement. ACPERA's damages limitation is set to expire in June, so we must act quickly to extend it. Otherwise, the Justice Department will lose an important tool that it uses to investigate and prosecute criminal cartel activity. The strong evidence that this program works means it is time to make it permanent. Permanence will give all parties--the government, potential amnesty applicants, and potential private litigants--a clear sign that criminal cartel enforcement continues to be a top priority, and that the amnesty program is a key and continuing component of that enforcement program. This certainty is likely to lead to increased participation in the amnesty program, the discovery of more cases, the receipt of more criminal fines, and a higher likelihood of consumers being able to recover their losses in civil litigation. Some have raised questions about whether the leniency program could be made more effective by changing the requirements for leniency applicants to cooperate in private litigation, or by increasing the incentive for whistleblowing. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to show that changes are needed and the Department of Justice is concerned that any changes could have the unintended consequence of reducing the incentives to use the Leniency Program. Therefore, at this time we are hesitant to tinker with success. However, in response to the concerns, the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act of 2010 requires a GAO study to consider the effectiveness of the incentives for leniency applicants to cooperate in private litigation, and specifically whether such cooperation is made in a timely fashion. The Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 is meant to facilitate both government and private enforcement of the antitrust laws, and the GAO study will shed some light on whether it strikes the correct balance. When we receive the study, we will review it and act accordingly, changing the law if necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize one of our most prominent Wisconsinites, Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day. On April 22, 1970, 20 million Americans paused for a day to celebrate our planet and press for the urgent actions needed to preserve and protect it. As we observe this 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, we once again reflect on the necessity of a clean and safe environment, celebrate the successes of the last four decades, and consider the long way we still must go to achieve the goals laid out that day. In Wisconsin, we also stop to remember and honor one of our most prominent citizens. Earth Day was born out of the passion of Gaylord Nelson. His life was one of service from the Pacific theater during World War II, to the State House as a State Senator and Governor, and to Washington, DC where he served Wisconsin as a U.S. Senator for nearly 20 years. When Gaylord came to Washington, he did so with a mission to bring environmental causes to the forefront of the national debate. He believed that the cause of environmentalism needed as much attention as national defense. For his first years in the Senate, his cause was lonely. In 1966, his bill to ban the pesticide DDT garnered no cosponsors. Gaylord knew that only with the grassroots support of regular Americans, could the environmental agenda rise to prominence. His idea for Earth Day came from the student teach-ins of the 1960s, but his cause inspired people across boundaries of age, race and location. This year, more than one billion people around the world will come together in the same way they did 40 years ago. In a speech on that historic day in 1970, Gaylord noted that his goal was not just one of clean air and water, but also ``an environment of decency, quality and mutual respect for all other human beings and all other living creatures.'' He told the crowd that America could meet the challenge through our technology. The unanswered question was, he said, ``Are we willing?'' That question was answered with a resounding yes. That year saw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, 6 years after Gaylord Nelson stood alone on his proposed DDT ban, its use was ended. Later years would bring better protection of drinking water, emissions and efficiency standards for cars, programs to cleanup brownfields sites, and the protection and preservation of our forests, rivers, mountains and oceans. Despite that progress and I imagine Gaylord would be the first to note this we still have much work ahead of us. We must use this anniversary to commit to another environmental decade. The needs of 40 years ago cleaner water, cleaner air, more protection of our lands are still here, but the next challenge we must face is climate change. From lower lake levels, to more invasive species, the consequences of unchecked climate change could be devastating to the people of Wisconsin. Climate change isn't just a threat, it is also an opportunity. Structured correctly, the solutions to slowing climate change can also speed up our economic recovery. Remarkable research and development is happening today in Wisconsin on products for cleaner water, advanced battery technology, and using waste from farms and forests to make advanced biofuels. We have companies developing products to harness the power of the sun to replace traditional interior lighting, retrofitting heavy-duty trucks into hybrids, and manufacturing energy-efficient hot water heaters. In Congress, legislative work to address climate change is ongoing. With the right mixture of requirements and incentives, we can achieve a policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, cuts greenhouse gas emissions, lowers prices at the pump and on the electricity bill, and creates good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. We do not have to choose between the environment and the economy, between jobs and solving climate change. Gaylord Nelson made this point over and over again. He once wrote that ``all economic activity depends upon the air, water, soil, forest, minerals, wetlands, rivers, lakes, oceans, wildlife habitats, and scenic beauty.'' These, he said, ``are the accumulated capital resources of the nation. Take them away and what you have left is a wasteland.'' On this 40th anniversary of Earth Day, while we remember the pioneering sprit of Gaylord Nelson, we must honor his legacy by turning words into action.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting S.1147, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. With its passage, we cut off a source of funding for terrorists and criminals raise more money, enhance states' ability to collect significant amounts of tax revenue, and further limit kids from easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet. By passing this bill, we are solving a serious problem that is growing every day. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, BATFE, had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. Today there are more than 400 active tobacco smuggling investigations. Last November, BATFE announced that they were charging 14 people with paying over $8 million, nearly 40 firearms, and drugs to purchase more than 77 million contraband cigarettes to sell in New York. Moreover, two of the conspirators were also charged with hiring a hitman to kill two people they believed to be stealing contraband cigarettes. The problem is significant, and today we are giving law enforcement the additional tools they need to root out and end cigarette trafficking and related crimes. The number of cases alone does not sufficiently put this problem into perspective. The amount of money involved is truly astonishing. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the Internet, costs States billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that we lose $5 billion of tax revenue, at the Federal and State level, each year. As lost tobacco tax revenue lines the pockets of criminals and terrorist groups, states are being forced to squeeze their budgets even tighter by cutting programs and increasing college tuition. Tobacco smuggling may provide some with cheap access to cigarettes, but those cheap cigarettes are coming at a significant cost to the rest of us. The cost to Americans is not merely financial. Tobacco smuggling has developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, al-Qaida and Hamas have all generated significant revenue from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes. That money is often raised right here in the United States, and it is then funneled back to these international terrorist groups. In July 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended that ``[v]igorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.'' And the 9/11 commission stressed that it is important to rely, in part, on traditional criminal tools to disrupt terrorist fundraising efforts, since they often raise money by trafficking in counterfeit goods. Specifically, it said, ``[c]ounterterrorism investigations often overlap or are cued by other criminal investigations, such as money laundering or the smuggling of contraband.'' All too often, that contraband is cigarettes. By passing this bill today, we are sending a strong message that terrorist organizations can no longer exploit the weaknesses in our tobacco laws to generate significant amounts of money. Cutting off financial support to terrorist groups is an indispensable part of protecting the country against future attacks. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, cigarette trafficking investigations are growing more and more complex, and take longer to resolve. More people are selling cigarettes illegally, and they are getting better at it. As these cases become more difficult to crack, we owe it to law enforcement officials to do our part to lend a helping hand. The PACT Act does that by enhancing BATFE's authority to enter premises to investigate and enforce cigarette trafficking laws. It also increases penalties for cigarette trafficking under the Jenkins Act from a misdemeanor to a felony. Instead of a slap on the wrist, we need to show these people we mean business and make sure the investigative efforts of our law enforcement officers pays off. Unless these existing laws are strengthened, traffickers will continue to operate with near impunity. Just as important, though, we must enable our country's law enforcement officials to combat the cigarette smugglers of the 21st century. The internet represents a new obstacle to enforcement. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then shipping their illegal products around the country to consumers. Just a few years ago, there were less than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the Internet. Without innovative enforcement methods, law enforcement will not be able to effectively address the growing challenges facing them today. The PACT Act sets out to do just that by empowering states to go after out-of-state sellers who are violating their tax laws in Federal court. It also cuts off their method of delivery. A significant part of this problem involves the shipment of contraband cigarettes through the United States Postal Service, USPS. This bill would cut off online vendors' access to the USPS. We would treat cigarettes just like we treat alcohol, making it illegal to ship them through the U.S. mails and cutting off a large portion of the delivery system. In addition to cracking down on tobacco smuggling, the bill will keep tobacco out of the hands of kids. One of the primary ways children get access to cigarettes today is on the Internet and through the mails. The PACT Act contains a strong age verification section that will prevent online sales of cigarettes by requiring sellers to use a method of shipment that includes a signature and photo ID check upon delivery. Most States already have similar laws on the books, and this would simply make sure that we have a national standard to ensure that the Internet is not being used to evade ID checks required at our grocery and convenience stores. It is important to point out that this bill has been carefully drafted, following negotiations with numerous interested parties, including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Department of Justice, and various tribal groups, to ensure that it would be strictly neutral in regards to tribal sovereignty and tribal immunity rights. The PACT Act would neither expand nor contract the current scope of tribal sovereignty and immunity, as determined by Federal statute and judicial interpretations. Also, the bill makes clear that it cannot be used to expand, contract, or otherwise change the scope of tribal sovereignty and immunity. The commonsense approach of the PACT Act has brought together a strong coalition of supporters. Tobacco companies and public health advocates; State law enforcement and Federal law enforcement; and Republicans and Democrats alike all agree that this is an issue that must be addressed. Today, we begin to provide law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to combat a very serious threat to our States' coffers, national security, and public health. Again, I thank leadership, the cosponsors of the bill, and all of my colleagues for their support of the PACT Act.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. With those assurances, I will not offer my amendment and look forward to working with Chairman Harkin and Chairman Baucus on improving the PBGC.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise in support of William Conley's nomination to be district court judge for the Western District of Wisconsin. If confirmed, Mr. Conley will replace Judge Barbara Crabb, who is taking senior status after more than 30 years of distinguished service on the court. Bill Conley will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. He rose from humble roots in the small town of Rice Lake, WI, to graduate with distinction from the University of Wisconsin. He went on to the law school at UW, graduating cum laude and Order of the Coif. Following law school, he clerked on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge Fairchild. Bill Conley's career has prepared him well to be a Federal judge. He has practiced law for 25 years at the venerable Madison firm of Foley & Lardner. Throughout his career, he has earned a reputation as a skillful lawyer and top-notch litigator. He has represented a variety of national and international companies before State and Federal courts and has served as a mediator and arbitrator and helped parties resolve their disputes outside court. One of Bill Conley's greatest strengths is his frequent representation of clients before the court to which he has been nominated. From this experience, he has gained a keen understanding of the court as well as the fairness and impartiality the administration of justice requires. While managing a busy legal practice, Bill Conley has remained committed to using his legal talent for the benefit of the local community. He has devoted hundreds of hours to pro bono legal work, representing refugees, indigent defendants, and others who would otherwise not be able to afford legal representation. He has also been active with the Remington Center for Criminal Justice at the University of Wisconsin, as well as the Wisconsin Equal Justice Fund. Despite the many hours his work demands, Bill Conley makes time for his family and is a devoted husband, father, brother, and son. In sum, he possesses all the best qualities we look for in a judge: legal acumen, diligence, humility, and integrity. Bill Conley's nomination was the result of the work of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. For the past 30 years, Senators from Wisconsin, regardless of party, have used the Commission to select candidates for the Federal bench. This process ensures that a judge's qualifications are always our primary consideration and that politics are kept to a minimum. Bill Conley's nomination proves, once again, that the process we use in Wisconsin ensures excellence. So it is no surprise that the American Bar Association found him to be ``unanimously well qualified'' and that the Judiciary Committee approved of his nomination without dissent. When considering nominees for lifetime appointments for the Federal courts, we must satisfy ourselves that these nominees have substantial legal experience, are learned in the law, have the respect of their peers, and, most important of all, will be fair-minded and do justice without predisposition or bias. William Conley's experience and qualifications convince me he well exceeds these requirements. I am confident Bill Conley will be a Federal judge we can be proud of and that he will serve the people of Wisconsin well. Thank you very much. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to recognize and congratulate Richard Basham on his retirement as football coach of the Marquette University High School Hilltoppers. Coach Basham led the Hilltoppers for 38 seasons. Throughout his tenure, the Hilltoppers had 4 undefeated seasons, 20 conference championships, and 9 state championships--including in Coach Basham's final season. With 340 career wins, Coach Basham has won more high school football games than any other coach in Wisconsin State history. In addition to Coach Basham's outstanding work on the football field, he led students in the classroom as a math teacher and chair of the Marquette University High School Mathematics Department. He showed an enduring commitment to bettering the lives of his students and his players, cultivating their passion for success. In a State that is proud to call Title Town and the great Vince Lombardi its own, Richard Basham will be remembered as the leader of another great football dynasty. In these almost four decades, Coach Basham and Marquette University High School Hilltoppers football have epitomized tradition, discipline, and success both on and off the field. On behalf of our State, I congratulate Coach Basham on his remarkable coaching career and for his retirement. I wish him good health, happiness, and prosperity for many years to come.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to discuss language in the Reid substitute amendment to H.R. 3590 that would have a dramatic effect on Wisconsin's Medicaid Program. I would like to converse about this with two of my distinguished colleagues--the other Senator from my home State of Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I commend Senator Baucus's long and hard work in crafting this historical piece of legislation, and today, I seek clarification of one piece of this bill.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Section 2001 of the legislation describes which individuals in each State will be deemed ``newly eligible'' for Medicaid. It is my understanding that the Federal Government will provide 100 percent of the funds to cover this group of newly eligibles from 2014 to 2016 and that States will be provided with their current law FMAP rates, which are below 100 percent, for individuals already covered. Is this correct?

Mr. KOHL. As my two colleagues are aware, Wisconsin currently provides coverage for a number of individuals under a Medicaid waiver, but this coverage does not meet the requirements for benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage under the Social Security Act. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Federal agency that oversees Medicaid, has confirmed this for us. Senator Feingold and I understand that, because of this, the individuals in Wisconsin who do not receive benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage will be considered newly eligible, and therefore Wisconsin will receive 100 percent Federal funds for those individuals in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Is this the Senator's understanding of the legislation as well?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I would like to talk about health care costs. We began this endeavor to fix our broken health care system a year ago for two reasons: to move toward universal coverage, and to reduce the unacceptably high cost of health care that is threatening to ruin our country. It is vital that in our quest to cut costs, we do not leave money on the table that could be going back into the pockets of the American people. This process is not over and while we still have time, we need to more strongly address the rising costs of prescription drugs. The cost of brand-name drugs rose nine percent last year. That is an unprecedented, unacceptable hike. In contrast, the cost of generic drugs fell by nearly nine percent over the same time period. For years, we have tried to make it easier for Americans to have access to affordable drugs. We have worked to ease the backlog of generic drug applications at the FDA. We support comparative effectiveness studies and academic detailing to diminish the influence of brand-name drug manufacturers. And we must continue to break down the barriers to help generic drug companies get their products on the market. Therefore it is imperative that we pass legislation to fight the backroom deals between brand name drug companies and generic drug companies that keep generics off the market and out of reach for consumers. The Kohl-Grassley amendment to stop what we call these ``reverse payments'' is based on a bill that was passed with bipartisan support by the Judiciary Committee last month, and I thank Senator Grassley for working together with me on it. Let me be clear about what these deals are: brandname drug companies pay generic drug companies--their competition to not sell their products. The brandname drug companies win because they get rid of the competition. Generic drug companies win because they get paid without having to manufacture a product. And consumers lose because they have been robbed of a competitive marketplace. How much do American consumers lose in these backroom deals? Thirty- five billion dollars over 10 years, according to the Federal Trade Commission. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates these anticompetitive deals cost the Federal Government nearly $2 billion on top of that, because we end up paying more for branded drugs through Medicare and Medicaid. We cannot afford to leave this money on the table, and our bill--which we hope will be included in the final health reform legislation--will make sure we do not. We are pleased that the current bill includes a provision that Senator Grassley and I hope will slow the rising cost of drugs and medical devices. Our policy aims to make transparent the influence that industry gifts and payments to doctors may have on medical care. As we look to reform the health system, it is imperative that every dollar is spent wisely. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to end these collusive drug company settlements and to find additional ways to reduce the cost of this bill. This proposal would save billions of dollars and reduce consumer costs by billions more. This is what we said we would do, and this is what we must do.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Hatch that would provide tax credits for purchasers of hybrid and plug-in hybrid heavy duty trucks. Specifically, this bill would extend the existing heavy duty hybrid tax credit and create a tax credit for heavy duty plug-in hybrid trucks. The plug-in tax credit was included in the Senate passed stimulus bill, but was dropped in conference. Both tax credits would begin at $15,000 for those vehicles weighing up to 14,000 lbs and max out at $100,000 for vehicles weighing more than 33,000 lbs. The tax credits would expire in 2014. The challenge for hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies is cost. Advanced batteries and components are new and expensive technologies. In the medium and heavy duty sector, these costs are even higher and vehicle turnover is lower. The incremental cost of a heavy duty plug-in hybrid over 23,000 lbs can be as much as $85,000. We are introducing this bill to provide the needed incentives for manufacturers to develop and install hybrid and plug-in hybrid technology on heavy duty trucks. This bill also includes a tax credit of up to $3,500 for trucks stops to install electrification units so that truckers could plug in their vehicles to operate necessary systems without idling the engine. Because the Department of Transportation mandates that truckers rest for 10 hours after driving for 11 hours, truckers idle at truck stops for several hours. With this tax credit, truckers would be able to operate the heater, air conditioner, television, and other appliances without running the engine, which saves fuel, reduces air pollution, and reduces engine wear. The tax credit would end in 2014. In addition to reducing oil use in their drive cycles, electrification is an important technology for reducing idle costs and emissions. U.S. trucks idle an average of 1830 hours per year. The idling of commercial vehicles is estimated to consume more than 2 billion gallons of fuel annually, while producing unwanted emissions. By promoting onboard electricity options for powering vehicle functions while idling and by expanding off board options, through truck stop electrification, this legislation will reduce oil use and emissions from this sector even further. This bill, which has the support of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, will help manufacturers reach the economies of scale by bringing down the costs of hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies. The tax credits will promote the purchases of clean, efficient electric drive trucks and the installation of anti-idling equipment that will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, the plight of vulnerable seniors is a subject of great concern to me. The committee is charged with uncovering problems that endanger the health and welfare of older adults and developing policy to prevent seniors from becoming victims of fraudulent scams and abuse. During this Congress, I have been fortunate to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Lincoln and Hatch and Stabenow, in advancing policy to reduce elder abuse. The Senate health care reform bill now includes both the Elder Justice Act and the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act, and we will do our utmost to see that they become law. Today I am pleased to continue the effort to protect America's vulnerable seniors by introducing an amendment that combines two very valuable bills, the Elder Abuse Victims Act and the National Silver Alert Act. Both have been passed by the House of Representatives. Elder abuse is a sad scourge on our society, often hidden from sight by the victis themselves. Even so, experts conservatively estimate that as many as 2 million Americans age 65 and older have been injured, exploited or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depend for care or protection. As Federal policymakers, it is time that we step forward and tackle this chaenge with dedicated efforts and more vigorous programs that will make fighting elder abuse as high a priority as ongoing efforts to counter child abuse. It is in this spirit that I am offering an amendment to give the Department of Justice a roadmap for how to establish programs to bolster the frontline responses of state and local prosecutors, aid victims, and build a robust infrastructure for identifying and addressing elder abuse far more effectively than we do today. We need to provide assistance to our courts, which would benefit from having access to designated staff that boast particular expertise in elder abuse. Specialized protocols may be required where victims are unable to testify on their own behalf, due to cognitive impairments or poor physical health. And there is a great need for specialized knowledge to support successful prosecutions and enhance the development of case law. Today, many state elder abuse statutes lack adequate provisions to encourage wide reporting of abuse and exploitation, more thorough investigations and greater prosecution of abuse cases. For the victims of elder abuse, many of whom are physically frail and very frightened, we must do much more. First and foremost, we must be more responsive. Not too long ago, it was difficult to even get an abuse case investigated. While that is starting to change, we have much work ahead. For example, sometimes emergency interventions are necessary, particularly if the older person is being harmed at the hands of family members or trusted ``friends.'' It may be necessary to remove the older adult from his or her home to a temporary safe haven. To do this, we must build a much more robust system of support. And there is more we must do to assist vulnerable seniors who may not be abused, but who are nonetheless vulnerable because they suffer from cognitive impairment. As the prevalence of dementia rises in our aging society, we have a special responsibility to ensure that those who ``go missing'' from home are returned promptly and safely. This is the purpose of the second part of the amendment, which proposes to create a national program to coordinate State Silver Alert systems. The Amber Alert system, on which the Silver Alert Act is modeled, was created as a Federal program to rapidly filter reported information on missing children and transmit relevant details to law enforcement authorities and the public as quickly as possible. Using the same infrastructure as Amber Alerts, 11 States have already responded to the problem of missing seniors by establishing Silver Alert systems at very little additional cost. These programs have created public notification systems triggered by the report of a missing senior. Postings on highways, radio, television, and other forms of media broadcast information about the missing senior to assist in locating and returning the senior safely home. Now we have an opportunity to finish the job and create Silver Alert programs across the country. Both of the provisions in this amendment are strongly supported by the Elder Justice Coalition. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and by doing so to markedly reduce the risk of harm to our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, with America aging at an unprecedented rate, and with the high and rising costs of caring for a loved one, the financing of long-term care must be addressed if we are going to get health care costs under control. For those who can plan ahead while they are still healthy, and who can afford it, private long-term care insurance may play a helpful role in enhancing their retirement security--but only if the policies they purchase are sound and the protections are strong. We all know that long-term care is expensive. The cost of care in a nursing home now averages $75,000 per year. However, most Americans do not realize Medicare provides only very limited assistance through home health services, and that Medicaid will not cover long-term care costs unless their household savings are nearly eliminated. States share the responsibility of providing Medicaid funding for long-term care with the Federal Government, and are also looking for ways to reduce their expenses. As of today, 43 States are in the process of launching ``partnership'' programs, which provide consumers who purchase private long-term care insurance and exhaust their benefits the ability to retain higher assets than are normally permitted if they go on to receive services under Medicaid. We have a duty to try to ensure that these policies, which often span decades, are financially viable. During the last several years, several long-term care insurance carriers have fallen into financial difficulties, raising questions about how protected policyholders' investments are, and others have sharply raised premiums to compensate for actuarial miscalculations. Such premium increases can be devastating for older persons who are living on fixed incomes. Their choices are often stark and very limited: they can either dig deeper and pay the increased premiums, or let their policy lapse, leaving them with no coverage if they ever need care. Last year, I was joined by several Senate and House colleagues in releasing a GAO report on whether adequate consumer protections are in place for those who purchase long-term care insurance. The report found that rate increases are common throughout the industry, and that consumer protections are uneven. While some States have adopted requirements that keep rates relatively stable, some have not, leaving consumers unprotected. The amendment I am cosponsoring with Senators Wyden and Klobuchar will help mitigate these problems and do a better job of protecting policyholders who buy policies in the future. We need to strengthen standards for all policies to ensure that premiums increases are kept to a minimum; that insurance agents receive adequate training; and that complaints and appeals are addressed in a timely manner. We also need to make it easier for consumers to accurately compare policies from different insurance carriers, particularly with regard to what benefits are covered and whether the plan offers inflation protection. States should also have to approve materials used to market Partnership policies. This amendment will institute these and many other improvements. It is estimated that two out of three Americans who reach the age of 65 will need long-term care services and supports at some point to assist them with day-to-day activities, and enable them to maintain a high-quality, independent life. Long-term care insurance is an appropriate product for many who wish to plan for a secure retirement. But to be a viable part of the health care solution, we must take the necessary steps to guarantee that consumers across the country have adequate information and protections, and that premiums won't skyrocket down the road. I am pleased to say that this policy is strongly supported by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the Wisconsin Office of the Insurance Commissioner, Consumers Union, Genworth Financial, Northwestern Mutual, the National Treasury Employees Union, and California Health Advocates, which provides support to that state's insurance counseling and advocacy programs. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank very much Senator Baucus. I come to the floor to talk about the many ways in which this bill will have a positive impact for seniors. Over the past year, we have seen confusion about what health care reform will mean for Americans and particularly for seniors. I had hoped that once the Senate voted to move forward with debate on one merged bill, we could offer some definitive answers on how health reform will help them. Unfortunately, here we are on the floor, continuing to send mixed messages about some very concrete provisions. As chairman of the Aging Committee, I wish to help set the record straight for older Americans. This health reform bill is not going to cut Medicare benefits. Independent groups such as the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare have said this bill will strengthen Medicare and not harm it. AARP believes this bill will transition Medicare to a more efficient system, where quality health care outcomes are rewarded and waste, which experts believe accounts for up to 30 percent of Medicare spending, is reduced. In terms of the cuts to Medicare Advantage, this bill will only cut back on overpayments to these private Medicare plans. Benefits will not be affected. AARP also supports these cuts because they understand that most of the overpayments are going to insurance company profits, not to seniors' benefits, and that this overspending is putting Medicare on a faster path to insolvency. Experts say by making these cuts, health reform will extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by 5 years, without making one cut to guaranteed benefits. I understand people complain that this bill is too long. But any bill that seeks to offer choice and meet the needs of so many Americans is, by necessity, complex. We cannot gloss over these vital issues. So I would like to take a minute to share with you some of the provisions that have not received as much attention but are, nevertheless, crucial to improving America's health care system. There is a lot in this bill for older Americans, retirees, and those planning ahead for a healthy and happy long life. The Aging Committee has worked closely with the leadership of the HELP and Finance Committees to improve several of our provisions, most of which have bipartisan support. I wish to particularly thank Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, and Majority Leader Reid for being so willing to work with us on these important issues. We have enlisted help from seniors groups of every stripe to ensure health reform makes commonsense improvements that, in some cases, are desperately needed. This bill will significantly improve the standard of care in nursing homes nationwide for the first time in 22 years. I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, for working together to make sure this important issue was not overlooked as part of health reform. In and of itself, this is a huge undertaking, but it is just one piece of the puzzle to comprehensively reform our health care system. This bill will also train and expand the health care workforce so they are prepared to care for the growing elderly population. By implementing recommendations from the Institutes of Medicine, we will begin to address the severe shortage we face of direct care workers. This bill will protect vulnerable patients by creating a nationwide system of background checks for long-term care workers. This policy is more than just a good idea in theory. We have implemented it in seven States and seen its results. Comprehensive background checks are routine for those who work with young children, and we should be protecting vulnerable seniors and disabled Americans in the same way. This bill will make it easier for seniors to get the care they need in their own homes because when it comes to long-term care, one size does not fit all. The goal of long-term care should be to allow older or disabled Americans to live as independently as possible. This bill will help update our current long-term care system in order to offer choices tailored to an individual's needs. It will also help to alleviate the huge financial and emotional burden on married couples who need long-term care. I worked with my colleague, Senator Cantwell, to ensure that married couples who receive care in their home and community are not required to spend the vast majority of their assets to receive assistance. The committee has also helped to include a provision that will benefit all Americans regardless of age by helping to lower the costs of prescription drugs and medical devices. Our policy aims to make transparent the influence of industry gifts and payments to doctors. Although these are only a few of the Aging Committee's priorities, this bill makes many other improvements to our current health care system for older Americans. The Senate bill will reduce the cost of preventive services and add a new focus on paying doctors to keep patients well and not just paying them for when their patients get sick. Today, seniors pay 20 percent of the cost of many preventive services. By eliminating the copayment and deductibles through Medicare for important services such as immunizations, cholesterol screenings, bone calcium-level screenings, and colonoscopies, we will help save lives as well as lower health care costs. The bill will also provide for the first time an annual wellness visit at no cost to the beneficiary. Patients will be able to receive a personalized health risk assessment for chronic disease, have a complete review of their personal and family medical history, and receive a plan for their care. This bill will remove the ability of insurance companies to deny access to consumers based on preexisting conditions. We know having health care is essential throughout one's life from beginning to end, but many older Americans count the days until they become eligible for Medicare because they are not able to find insurance coverage at any cost due to a health condition in their past. I could go on about the many other improvements, small and large, that will benefit our Nation's seniors, but I will stop here and simply urge my colleagues to work to educate seniors and not scare them about the important changes this bill will make to provide them with better health care at lower cost. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Asset Management Improvement Act of 2009, which I introduced with my colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe. This bill will help our public housing agencies deliver services to the families they serve more efficiently and effectively. Due to a 2005 rule published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, all public housing agencies are required to convert to asset management. Much of the guidance issued by HUD is inflexible and applies a one size fits all approach to managing housing units. HUD has treated managing every public housing program the same, when in fact, the multiple programs serve very different populations and operate in extremely different ways. Additionally, the regulations imposed by HUD have caused PHAs to lose operating funds and left many short-staffed. Finally, the asset management rules issued by HUD are incomplete and unclear, leaving PHAs uncertain of funding levels for each year. While Congress has attempted to address some of these issues through HUD Appropriations legislation, permanent fixes are necessary to ensure better guidance to PHAs. The legislation that we introduced today will ease administrative burdens on many public housing agencies, particularly the small agencies, and ensure that they have the proper funding, guidance and support to implement the rule of asset management. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Asset Management Improvement Act of 2009, which I introduced with my colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe. This bill will help our public housing agencies deliver services to the families they serve more efficiently and effectively. Due to a 2005 rule published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, all public housing agencies are required to convert to asset management. Much of the guidance issued by HUD is inflexible and applies a one size fits all approach to managing housing units. HUD has treated managing every public housing program the same, when in fact, the multiple programs serve very different populations and operate in extremely different ways. Additionally, the regulations imposed by HUD have caused PHAs to lose operating funds and left many short-staffed. Finally, the asset management rules issued by HUD are incomplete and unclear, leaving PHAs uncertain of funding levels for each year. While Congress has attempted to address some of these issues through HUD Appropriations legislation, permanent fixes are necessary to ensure better guidance to PHAs. The legislation that we introduced today will ease administrative burdens on many public housing agencies, particularly the small agencies, and ensure that they have the proper funding, guidance and support to implement the rule of asset management. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safe Affordable Loan Act. This legislation will increase the access for low and moderate income Americans to mainstream financial institutions while reducing the relevance of pay day lenders. Additionally, the bill will encourage community banks and credit unions to provide small dollar loan amounts to families across their communities. There are approximately 30 million Americans operating on the fringe of the financial system. They are known as the ``unbanked.'' The average income for these individuals is approximately $26,390, with little to no savings. Additionally, these consumers rely on check cashing services or payday lenders as a way to access credit. Most of these operations charge excessive fees and interest rates that leave consumers financially devastated. Without access to mainstream financial services, consumers can be trapped in a cycle of debt with little hope of escape. In 2008, the FDIC launched a Small Dollar Loan program which offers volunteer participants CRA credit to provide consumers with affordable small dollar loans. I am proud that two banks from Wisconsin, Mitchell Bank in Milwaukee and Benton State Bank in Benton are participating in this valuable program. While this program has been beneficial to communities across the country, only 31 banks have chosen to participate. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the 23,000 payday lender operations. Without other incentives, banks will shy away from lending consumers small amounts, leaving them to rely on payday lenders and other loan alternatives. The legislation I am proposing would create a loan-loss reserve fund that financial institutions could access in order to mitigate some of the risk associated with offering small dollar loans. Financial institutions will be able to access the reserve fund and could potentially recover 60 percent of a lost loan, provided that their loans meet certain affordability requirements. The institutions must offer loans that have no prepayment penalties, have a repayment period longer than 60 days and has an interest rate of 36 percent APR or lower. Additionally, the loan size cannot exceed $2,500. In order to protect the government from excessive risk taking by the financial institutions, the fund administrator will take into consideration the overall default rate of the loan program that the institution offers to determine the reimbursement rate. Furthermore, the financial institutions would be required to report payment history to the credit reporting bureaus which will help consumers build credit or repair bad credit. As we consider changes to our financial system, we should include reforms that will help increase access to many of those who are left out. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue in the Banking Committee to move it towards passage.