[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 6 (Monday, January 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S309-S315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 203. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify
the requirements for participation in the visa waiver program and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on
behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to mitigate the immigration and
security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program and its
expansion.
The Visa Waiver Program leaves open both a major gap in our domestic
security and a way to exploit our immigration laws. The Strengthening
the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would give the Department
of Homeland Security, DHS, new tools to secure the Visa Waiver Program,
consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.
The bill would set a maximum low visa overstay rate for all visa
waiver program countries; require a reevaluation of visa waiver program
countries within 1 year; mandate that the administration will lose its
authority to continue to expand the program if it does not track 97
percent of those exiting and departing at our airports--based on
arrival data, not just departure data; require an audit of the
electronic travel authorization system, ESTA; and require current visa
waiver countries to report on lost or stolen visas in order to remain
in the visa waiver program.
Senator Kyl and I have held multiple hearings over the years and time
and time again we have expressed concern and requested improvements,
but no changes have been forthcoming in how the Department of Homeland
Security intends to implement this program.
The hearings and the recent Government Accountability Office report
found that the administration is not doing what it should to secure the
program. Instead, the Visa Waiver Program has continued to expand
without meeting the security needs of our country.
In fact, just today the administration has announced that it has met
the deadline for the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA, to
be fully operational. However, the GAO report found that ESTA--the one
security check for visa waiver travelers prior to arrival at our
Nation's airports--has not been implemented effectively by the
administration to make it a workable system for the airlines and
embassies.
The GAO report also found that the administration is still unable to
track who comes in and out of this country. This is especially
significant given that the program was recently expanded to countries
with high visa overstay rates, bringing the number of participating
countries to 35.
This means that for the citizens of 35 countries--including
Australia, Singapore, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom--entering the
United States is as simple as purchasing an airline ticket and arriving
at the airport with a valid passport in hand.
The result is that these travelers not only bypass the interview and
individualized security screening process, but they are also lost once
they arrive in the U.S. because DHS is only checking when individuals
depart at our airports, not if they overstay their visit.
It is estimated that 40 percent of the current undocumented
population are people who have overstayed their visas. That means that
if there are 12 million
[[Page S310]]
undocumented people now in the U.S., 4.8 million people overstayed
their visa. The Visa Waiver Program is the achilles heel of our
immigration system.
The security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program are even
greater--Our Nation's security experts have stated repeatedly that the
program provides an attractive option to terrorists looking to do
Americans harm.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27, 2007, DNI
Director Mike McConnell testified that Al Qaeda is purposefully
recruiting Europeans because they do not require a visa to come into
this country.
As Director McConnell said, this tactic gives Al Qaeda ``an extra
edge in getting an operative or two or three into the country with the
ability to carry out an attack that might be reminiscent of 9-11.''
Secretary Chertoff reiterated these concerns when he stated that
``terrorists are increasingly looking to Europe as both a target and a
platform for terrorist attacks'' against the United States.
In an interview with BBC's ``World News America,'' Secretary Chertoff
acknowledged, ``the first time we encounter [visa waiver travelers] is
when they arrive in the United States and that creates a very small
window of opportunity to check them out.''
These security risks are particularly apparent when we look at the
statistics on the number of fraudulent and stolen passports and other
international documents.
Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including
visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports
to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London
was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports
and visas that were destined for overseas embassies.
DHS's own Inspector General, Clark Ervin has testified that: ``The
lost and stolen passport problem is the greatest security problem
associated with the Visa Waiver Program. Our country is vulnerable
because gaps in our treatment of lost and stolen passports remain.''
The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would
put necessary security checks firmly in place and provide greater
program oversight.
We must act now to secure the Visa Waiver Program. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 203
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening the Visa
Waiver Program to Secure America Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Program country.--The term ``program country'' means a
country designated as a program country under section
217(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1187(c)(1)).
(2) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(3) Visa waiver program.--The term ``visa waiver program''
means the visa waiver program carried out under section 217
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).
SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN
PASSPORTS.
(a) Enforcement of Existing Requirement.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, each
program country shall have in effect an agreement with the
United States as required by section 217(c)(2)(D) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(2)(D)).
(b) Failure To Agree To Report.--
(1) Suspension from the program.--If a program country does
not meet the requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
immediately suspend the program country's participation in
the visa waiver program.
(2) Restoration to the program.--With respect to a country
that is suspended from participation in the visa waiver
program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall restore the
country's participation on the date that the Secretary
determines that the country meets the requirements of
paragraph (1).
(c) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a
country as a program country until after the date that the
Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of
subsection (a) have been met.
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR PERIODIC EVALUATIONS
OF PROGRAM COUNTRIES.
(a) Enforcement of Existing Requirement.--Not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
evaluate under section 217(c)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)) each program country
that was designated as a program country prior to January 1,
2009. Such evaluation shall include the visa overstay rate
for each program country for the 1-year period ending on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Visa Overstay Rate Defined.--In this section, the term
``visa overstay rate'' has the meaning given that term in
section 217(c)(8)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)(C)), as amended by section 6.
(c) Failure To Comply With Program Requirements.--
(1) Suspension from the program.--If the periodic
evaluation prepared under subsection (a) shows that a program
country has a visa overstay rate that exceeds 2 percent, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
immediately suspend the program country's participation in
the visa waiver program.
(2) Restoration to the program.--With respect to a country
that is suspended from participation in the visa waiver
program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall restore the
country's participation on the date that the Secretary
determines that the country's visa overstay rate does not
exceed 2 percent.
(d) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a
country as a program country until after the date that the
Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of
subsection (a) have been met.
SEC. 5. ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE VERIFICATION.
(a) Requirement for Verification.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 217(c)(8) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)) is
amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``can verify'' and inserting ``verifies'';
(ii) by inserting ``arrival and'' before ``departure''; and
(iii) by inserting ``entry and'' before ``exit''; and
(B) in clause (ii) by inserting ``entry and'' before
``exit''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of such section
217(c)(8) is amended by inserting ``entry and'' before
``exit''.
(b) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a
country as a program country until after the date that the
Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of
clause (i) of subsection (c)(8)(A) of section 217 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by subsection
(a)(1), are met.
(c) Audit.--
(1) Requirement to conduct.--Not later than 180 days after
the date that the certification described in clause (i) of
subsection (c)(8)(A) of section 217 the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), as amended by subsection
(a)(1), is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller of the
United States shall conduct an audit of the travel
authorization system described in subsection (h)(3) of that
section and submit a report on such audit to Congress.
(2) Elements.--The report by paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the data collected by such system;
(B) the number of individuals who were identified by such
system as being in violation of the immigration laws,
disaggregated by country; and
(C) an explanation of any problems in implementing such
system encountered during the early stages of implementation
to better identify high-risk travelers and countries of
origin of such travelers.
SEC. 6. VISA OVERSTAY RATES.
Subparagraph (C) of section 217(c)(8) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)), as amended by
section 5(a)(2), is further amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking the period at the end of the
first sentence and inserting ``, except that in no case may a
maximum visa overstay rate exceed 2 percent.'';
(2) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv);
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) Data compilation.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall compile data from all appropriate databases to
determine the visa overstay rate for each country. Such
databases shall include--
``(I) the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS);
``(II) the Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IDENT);
``(III) the Central Index System (CIS);
``(IV) the Computer Linked Application Information
Management Systems (CLAIMS);
``(V) the Deportable Alien Control System (DACS);
[[Page S311]]
``(VI) the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS);
``(VII) the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS);
``(VIII) the Reengineered Naturalization Applications
Casework Systems (RNACS); and
``(IX) the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS).'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) Annual report.--Not less frequently than once each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit
to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report describing the visa overstay rate
for the previous fiscal year of each country designated as a
program country under paragraph (1).''.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Levin, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 204. A bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and
exporting cartels illegal; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with ten of my
colleagues, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. This
legislation 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 efforts to fix the price of
oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our amendment
will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when
they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic
principles of free competition.
NOPEC 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 passed the full Senate by a vote of 70-23 in June 2007 as
an amendment to the 2007 Energy Bill before being stripped from that
bill in the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC
passed the other body as stand alone legislation in May 2007 by an
overwhelming 345-72 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 anti-consumer conspiracy.
Throughout 2007 and 2008, crude oil and gasoline prices marched
steadily upwards, peaking last summer at over $140 per barrel for crude
and well over $4 per gallon for gasoline. In recent months, of course,
these prices have plummeted as demand has dropped due to the serious
global economic recession. But the recent declines in crude oil and
gasoline prices should not fool us--the global oil cartel remains a
major force conspiring to raise oil prices to the detriment of American
consumers.
The recent actions of the OPEC cartel demonstrate the dangers it
presents. OPEC is doing everything it can to raise oil prices. On
October 24, 2008, OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barrels
a day, don December 17 OPEC agreed to a further 2.2 million barrels a
day production cut. The OPEC cartel makes no secret of its motivation
for these production cuts. OPEC President Chaib Khelil put it very
simply in an interview published December 23, 2008, ``Without these
cuts, I don't think we'd be seeing $43 [per barrel] today, we'd have
seen in the $20s. . . . [H]opefully by the third quarter [of 2009] we
will see prices rising.'' In another interview in December, Khelil was
quoted as saying ``The stronger the decision [to cut production], the
faster prices will pick up.''
And if the price of crude oil begins to rise again as a result of
these actions by OPEC, there is no doubt that millions of American
consumers will feel the pinch every time they visit the gas pump. 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.
Such blatantly anti-competitive 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 such an
international price fixing conspiracy, there would 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 NOPEC legislation
will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a
group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to
restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law.
It is also important to point out that this legislation will not
authorize private lawsuits. It only authorizes the Attorney General to
file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be in
the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to
whether to take action to enforce NOPEC. Our legislation will not
require the Government to bring a legal action against OPEC member
nations, and no private party will have the ability to bring such an
action. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the
executive branch. Our NOPEC legislation will give our law enforcement
agencies a tool to employ against the oil cartel--but the decision on
whether to use this tool will entirely be up to the Justice Department
and, ultimately, the President. They can use this tool as they see
fit--to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions,
or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other
considerations warrant it.
NOPEC will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide
behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to
escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our amendment will
overrule one 28 year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed
to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial
activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity.
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. We should not permit any
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not
work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our
NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice
Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing
conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real
deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to oil prices to
the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real
weapon the U.S. Government has ever had to deter OPEC from its
seemingly endless cycle of supply cutbacks designed to raise price. It
will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real
and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their
illegal conduct. It will also deter additional nations who may today be
considering joining OPEC.
I urge my colleagues to support our NOPEC legislation so that our
Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing
conspiracy of oil-rich nations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 204
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act of 2009'' or ``NOPEC''.
SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT.
The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding
after section 7 the following:
``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.
``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of
this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or
agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in
combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality
or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person,
whether by cartel or any other association or form of
cooperation or joint action--
[[Page S312]]
``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil,
natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or
any petroleum product; or
``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade
for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;
when such action, combination, or collective action has a
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the
market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas,
or other petroleum product in the United States.
``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in
conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the
jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States
in any action brought to enforce this section.
``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court
of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state
doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action
brought under this section.
``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United
States may bring an action to enforce this section in any
district court of the United States as provided under the
antitrust laws.''.
SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of
the Sherman Act.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 205. A bill to authorize additional resources to identify and
eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by
violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest
Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009. This important legislation,
which is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Durbin, and Feinstein, is
aimed at addressing drug-related violence in Mexico by reducing the
number of weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country.
The ongoing violence in Mexico is having a devastating impact on the
country. In 2008, more than 5,300 people were killed in Mexico--this is
double the number in the previous year. During this last year, there
were over 1,600 deaths just in Ciudad Juarez. Drug traffickers are
warring with each other, assassinations of police and government
officials are commonplace, lawyers and journalists have been killed,
and many innocent civilians have been caught up in the crossfire.
Border communities within the United States are also being directly
impacted. Many of the people living in this region have strong family
ties to Mexico and the violence makes it difficult to visit loved ones.
U.S. border hospitals have had to provide medical care to the wounded
under armed guard. And in New Mexico, we had to briefly shut down the
Columbus Port of Entry due to gun battles in the Mexican border town of
Palomas and provide police escorts to school buses passing through the
area. At one point this last year, the entire police force in Palomas
resigned due to threats by drug traffickers and the Chief of Police
fled to the United States to seek asylum.
Besides the horrific human toll this violence is having on
communities throughout Mexico, it also impacts the overall economy of
the border region. Everyday thousands of people travel back and forth
between the United States and Mexico for business and pleasure. This
flow of people and goods is an essential aspect of maintaining healthy
economic activity on both sides of the border. However, the current
security situation is hampering bilateral trade, new business ventures,
and tourism. In these tough economic times, the violence exacerbates an
already bad economic environment.
The United States has taken some important steps to help Mexico fight
drug traffickers, such as increasing bilateral cooperation and
providing substantial financial assistance as part of the Merida
initiative. However, there is much more that we can be doing to help
quell this violence. One key area where more can and should be done is
with regard to stopping the flow of weapons being smuggled into Mexico
from the United States.
According to the ATF, about 90 percent of the weapons confiscated in
Mexico come from sources within the United States because firearms are
much more readily accessible in the United States than in Mexico. These
weapons are the so-called ``tools of the trade'' for narco-traffickers.
They are the means by which cartels maintain control over drug
corridors and the instrument they use to execute their scheme of
violence and intimidation.
In the four U.S. border States there are about 6,600 licensed gun
dealers. The vast majority of these dealers act in accordance with the
law, but drug gangs exploit the availability of weapons in the region
to supply cartels on the Mexican side of the border with illegal high-
powered weapons.
The ATF has a very successful initiative in place to combat
southbound illicit weapons trafficking, know as Project Gunrunner, but
they need more resources to adequately tackle the problem.
The Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act would provide these much
needed resources. Specially, this legislation would authorize $30
million over 2 years to expand Project Gunrunner teams in the border
region and $19 million to assign agents to U.S. consulates in Mexico to
assist Mexican law enforcement with smuggling investigations.
I would also like to make it clear that nothing in this bill limits
the sale of firearms or places any additional restrictions on licensed
dealers. This effort is only focused on enhancing the investigative
capabilities of the ATF with regard to arms trafficking in order to
weed out the bad actors and to ensure that weapons aren't being
illegally smuggled across the border.
The United States has traditionally focused on enhancing efforts to
prevent illegal narcotics from being smuggled into the county. While we
obviously need to dedicate resources toward this end, we also should be
taking a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the northbound
flow of narcotics is dependent on the southbound flow of weapons and
currency. Denying traffickers the proceeds of drug sales and the
ability to heavily arm their cartels is essential in reducing the drug
flow into the United States.
It is insufficient to simply rely on Mexican authorities to stop the
flow of guns going into their country. Drug trafficking is a
transnational threat and the solution must involve sustained
cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We must do more on
our side of the border to disrupt weapons smuggling if we are going to
be successful in combating drug cartels.
Instability and violence in Mexico is taking a toll on communities on
both sides of the border. I strongly believe that this is an issue that
deserves more attention, and I hope my colleagues will support this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 205
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Southwest Border Violence
Reduction Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. PROJECT GUNRUNNER.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall dedicate and
expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner
initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute
individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across
the international border between the United States and
Mexico.
(b) Activities.--In carrying out this section, the Attorney
General shall--
(1) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United
States adjacent to the international border between the
United States and Mexico to support the expansion of Project
Gunrunner teams;
(2) establish not fewer than 1 Project Gunrunner team in
each State along the international border between the United
States and Mexico; and
(3) coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal law
enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement
agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive
manner.
(c) Additional Staff.--The Attorney General may hire Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco,
[[Page S313]]
Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and otherwise expend
additional resources needed to adequately support, Project
Gunrunner.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
and 2011 to carry out this section.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in cooperation with
the Secretary of State, shall--
(1) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in
Mexico, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies in
conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking
and other criminal enterprises;
(2) provide the equipment and technological resources
necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms
recovered in Mexico; and
(3) support the training of Mexican law enforcement
officers in serial number restoration techniques, canine
explosive detection, and antitrafficking tactics.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $9,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
and 2011 to carry out this section.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 206. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to establish a program to help States expand the education
system to include at least 1 year of early education preceding the year
a child enters kindergarten; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Early
Education Act. Early education is critical to preparing children across
our Nation with the initial skills and abilities to successfully begin
their education. While the amount of support for early education has
been increasing, great discrepancies remain between the quality of
programs and the level of access from State to State.
This bill is a step forward in making a national commitment to giving
all children access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs that have
been proven to have a solid impact on a child's success later in school
and in life.
Of the more than 8 million 3- and 4-year-olds that could be in early
education, just over half are enrolled in an early education program.
In my State of California alone, just fewer than 60 percent of 3- and
4-year-olds are in some kind of preschool.
The result is that too many children enter elementary school
unprepared to learn.
Studies have shown that children who participate in pre-kindergarten
programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning
retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more
enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance
records.
Almost all experts now agree that an early education experience is
one of the most effective strategies for improving later school
performance. The National Research Council reported that pre-
kindergarten educational opportunities are critical in developing early
language and literacy skills and preventing reading difficulties in
young children.
The future of our Nation's economy depends on the next generation of
workers, and high-quality early childhood education is key to preparing
them for their careers. In the long run, pre-kindergarten programs pay
for themselves. Decades of research have proven that early education
programs yield between $7 to $16 for every dollar invested.
My bill, the Early Education Act, would create a program in at least
10 States to provide 1 year of pre-kindergarten early education in
public schools. The bill would require a dollar for dollar match by the
States and would authorize no less than $300 million annually for these
programs. These funds would be used by States to supplement--not
supplant--other Federal, State or local funds. This bill would serve
almost 150,000 children across the country.
Our children need a solid foundation that builds on our current
education system by providing them with early learning skills. I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for health insurance premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health
Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's workers and working
families deal with dramatic increases in health care costs. The
legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct their health insurance
premiums up to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.
While this deduction will certainly not solve all of the problems in
our health care system, it will provide help for working individuals
and families who have seen health care premium costs drastically rise.
Since 1999, the average health insurance premium for workers covering
their families has more than doubled. A recent survey by the Kaiser
Family Foundation found that 40 percent of employers that offer health
benefits are likely to increase the amount their employees pay in
premiums.
This is an issue of fairness. Current law provides a patchwork of tax
deductions for health care costs depending upon an individual's
employer, the type of health care plan provided by their employer, and/
or percentage of income spent on health care, among other things.
Unfortunately this patchwork has left out many employees who face
increasing premiums or are buying high cost health plans on their own.
This legislation rectifies that unfairness and will help people meet
rising health care costs. It would help those currently purchasing
coverage to continue to do so, as well as helping people who are
uninsured to purchase coverage.
This legislation is particularly important for employees in small
businesses. Many small businesses across the country have been forced
by the rising cost of health care to shift an increasing amount of
health insurance costs to their employees. These are hard working
Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy.
Now more than ever we need legislation that provides targeted
assistance to help families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues
to support my legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN):
S. 212. A bill to expand the boundaries of the Gulf of the Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell
Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary Modification and Protection
Act will protect one of the world's most biologically-diverse and
productive marine regions. I am proud to be joined in this effort by
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Established in 1981 and 1989 respectively, the Gulf of the Farallones
and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries have helped protect the
special marine waters and coastline that are quintessentially
Californian. My bill will protect an even greater part of my State's
coast by expanding the sanctuaries' boundaries to include more of
northern California's great coastal upwelling area, one of only four on
the planet.
Upwelling areas are places where deeper water comes up to the
surface, bringing the nutrients needed by marine algae to grow and
support all higher forms of marine life. Though coastal upwelling areas
comprise only 1 percent of the world's ocean they produce 20 percent of
its fish. The area from Point Arena to Bodega Bay, currently outside
the sanctuaries' boundaries, is particularly important since it
consistently has the most intense upwelling in all of North America and
an enormous capacity to support marine life. I am proud that my bill
will expand the sanctuaries' boundaries to protect this upwelling area.
The unique productivity of this region is illustrated by the
abundance and diversity of marine life it supports: 36 species of
marine mammals, including the endangered blue and humpback whales;
numerous coastal and migratory seabirds, including the black-footed
albatross; endangered leatherback turtles; and Coho salmon. Expanding
the existing sanctuaries to include this area is necessary to protect
this remarkable ecosystem from pollution and habitat degradation.
[[Page S314]]
My bill has broad, local support, including from the California
Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the Counties
of Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino, and the cities in the expansion
region. It is also supported by fishermen, including the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, by far the largest and most
active association of commercial fishermen on the West Coast. Fishermen
recognize the urgency of passing this legislation to preserve the water
quality and habitat essential for good fishing.
My bill will help preserve an incomparable gem of an ecosystem. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important
legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 213. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure air
passengers have access to necessary services while on a grounded air
carrier, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to re-introduce the
Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act, a critical piece of airline
passenger safety legislation.
Anyone who has traveled recently recognizes that the delays travelers
are encountering at airports are a national problem that needs our
immediate attention.
Americans are all too familiar with the numerous horror stories of
passengers trapped in airplanes sitting on runways for sometimes as
much as 11 hours without adequate food or water, overflowing restrooms,
and no opportunity to deplane.
The delays continue. On the Sunday before Christmas 2008, more than
250 passengers on a Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Boston
were diverted to Bangor, ME, where they spent about 6 hours idling on
the tarmac before they were told that they were going to deplane for
the night and would have to find shelter and transportation on their
own.
When these passengers returned the next day for their trip home, not
only was their flight delayed 5 hours but they also spent another 2
hours idling on the tarmac before finally flying to Boston.
In 1999, the airlines had an opportunity to address the stranding of
airline passengers on tarmacs across the country, but despite those
efforts little has changed.
Last March a Federal appeals court ruling struck down New York
State's Passenger Bill of Rights law, stating that it is up to the
Congress to set a national Federal standard.
To meet this immediate need for Federal legislation, I am re-
introducing the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act, along with
Senator Snowe, to give airline passengers basic protections when they
are facing these delays and disruptions in their travel.
This legislation requires airlines to give passengers adequate food,
water, facilities, and medical attention when planes are delayed on the
tarmac.
In addition, the bill requires each air carrier to develop an
emergency contingency plan, to be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) that identifies a clear timeframe to
allow passengers to deplane if they choose and if the pilot deems it
safe.
Airlines will need to give passengers the option of deplaning every 3
hours, with exceptions to maintain passenger safety and airport
efficiency.
Our legislation also includes a few additional provisions from the
FAA Reauthorization bill passed by the House in the last Congress. Our
bill requires airports to develop plans to handle stranded passenger
aircraft and creates a DOT hotline for consumer complaints. It would
also permit the DOT to levy fines against air carriers or airports that
do not submit or adhere to the contingency plans.
The European Union enacted a Passenger Bill of Rights in 2005 and
Canada passed similar legislation last year. It is time for the United
States to step up and make a serious commitment to the millions of
Americans that rely on safe and effective air travel.
As the number of airline passengers is expected to increase to 1.3
billion by 2025, we can't afford a ``business as usual'' attitude when
it comes to passenger safety and efficiency at our nation's busiest
airports.
Consumers deserve access to food, water, and medical attention when
stranded on an aircraft tarmac due to delays. Congress has the ability
to ensure airline passengers' fundamental rights are protected by
enacting our Passenger Bill of Rights legislation.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation
in this Congress.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today on behalf
of the millions of travelers throughout this country. Before I begin, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Boxer for being
such a fantastic partner in this effort; an effort that sets aside
partisanship to protect America's traveling public. Her aggressive,
heartfelt leadership on this issue has been so essential in moving this
legislation forward and keeping it at the forefront of the public
consciousness.
To my regret, each one of us is far too familiar with horror stories
of passengers stranded on airplanes for hours at a time with no access
to food, water or even functional restrooms. Events like the
unconscionable delays at JFK Airport in New York in February of 2007
are the most commonly referenced, but these sorts of events are
occurring on a daily basis. Such dramatic incidents prompted calls for
congressional action. That call was heard, and its answer is this
Passenger Bill of Rights before us today. But as time went on, and this
legislation before us today languished, the chorus for change grew
quiet. The reasons why we first proposed the Passenger Bill of Rights
have not dissipated; in fact, they have only increased.
The 2008 Air Quality Rating report, which quantifies the performances
of the various airlines when it comes to customer service, indicated it
was ``the worst year for airlines Ever.'' Delays continue to escalate.
In fact, despite nearly a 10 percent reduction in capacity last year,
delays actually climbed to a record high; an average of nearly an hour
per delay.
At a time when airlines are grounding flights without notice and
passengers face interminable waits in aircraft and on tarmacs with
little or no idea as to when they might depart, there are no safeguards
in place to protect the rights of America's travelers--the time is now
for Congress to do the right thing and finally stand with America's
passengers. The Federal court system agrees with us; in voiding New
York State's own Passenger Bill of Rights, the Second United States
Court of Appeals decision indicated that such a Bill of Rights required
``a Federal standard.'' The airlines declared victory as the New York
law was overturned; according to the airlines, it would herald a jumble
of changing regulations among different states, making it too difficult
to navigate. However, when presented with the option of having a
national standard by Senator Boxer and myself, they opposed that
proposal as well. It seems the airlines want carte blanche to treat
passengers as they wish, with no recourse for that individual. It is
clear, Congress must take this matter in hand.
Simply put, Congress has run out of excuses. The courts have
definitively ruled that this is the Federal Government's
responsibility. We have not just a right, but a responsibility to the
American people to ensure that there is some level of accountability,
some minimum standard. If a patron visits a restaurant that does not
offer some modicum of working restrooms or provide adequate food and
water, that customer can leave the restaurant and find another. For the
airline passenger, that is not an option. They are trapped at the mercy
of the airline; airlines whose only concern is the bottom line and
getting that aircraft off the ground, however long that might take.
Waiting for the airlines to alter their customer service model isn't
going to work. Thanks to Congressional prodding, the airlines put into
place their voluntary Customer Service Agreement in 1999. They have had
almost a decade to follow through with establishing some basic
commitment to customer service and failed miserably. That is not my
conclusion; the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation
agreed with that assessment. It is clear that after years of refusing
to adopt a commitment to provide customer service to the American
people, the airline industry will
[[Page S315]]
not take action unless Congress requires them to do so. This time,
Congress needs to show it is serious about protecting passengers.
By our actions, we can show the American people that we are on their
side and are working to protect their interests. Never again, should a
family be forced to sit on a tarmac for 10 hours, deprived of the most
basic of necessities. Canada was able to pass their passenger bill of
rights legislation, so if Canada can do it, then there is no reason
that Congress cannot do the same. By acting swiftly, and with resolve,
we can take up and pass an FAA Reauthorization that includes the
Passenger Bill of Rights, we can restore America's trust in our
airlines and guarantee them a standard of service we should all be
entitled to.
______
Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Cardin):
S. 214. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
permit qualifying States to use their allotments under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program for any fiscal year for certain
Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise with co-sponsors Senators Leahy,
Lieberman, and Cardin to introduce and ask your support for the
Children's Health Equity and Technical Amendment Act.
Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or
SCHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in
Medicaid prior to the enactment of SCHIP has been unfairly penalized
for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching
rate available to other States for children at similar levels of
poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York,
Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the
original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134
percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in SCHIP
but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont,
Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including
Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and
Maryland.
As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association
reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative
states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before
the enactment of SCHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these
goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding
flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage
of the majority of uninsured children in their states.''
For 6 years, our group of States has sought to have this inequity
addressed. Early in 2003, I introduced the Children's Health Equity Act
of 2003 with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we
worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S.
312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee. This compromise extended
expiring SCHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in
order to meet budgetary caps.
The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of
our State's SCHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children at
150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior
to the enactment of SCHIP. That language was maintained in conference
and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public
Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference
language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode
Island and needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed,
H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17,
2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I
introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem
caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change.
Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it must
be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, this authority was renewed
through fiscal year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the National Institutes
of Health Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-482. Without future
authority, the inequity would continue with SCHIP allotments.
This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all
future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use our SCHIP
allotments to pay for health care services of children. In order to
bring these requirements in-line with those of other States, it would
also lower the threshold at which New Mexico and other effected States
could utilize the funds from 150 percent of the Federal poverty level
to 125 percent.
There is strong bipartisan support for addressing this inequity.
Legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress in both H.R. 3584 by
Republican Representative Barton, and 141 co-sponsors, and S. 2086 by
Senator Trent Lott and other Republican leadership to expand the
category of children eligible through this correction to 133 percent of
the Federal poverty level.
This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in
States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the SCHIP inequity, New
Mexico has been allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years
1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26
million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico
has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal SCHIP
allocations.
This legislation would correct this problem.
The bill does not take money from other States' SCHIP allotments. It
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific SCHIP allotments
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other
States across the country are doing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 214
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Health Equity
Technical Amendments Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE CHIP ALLOTMENT
FOR ANY FISCAL YEAR FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID
EXPENDITURES.
(a) Elimination of Fiscal Year and Percentage
Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as amended by
section 201(b)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), is amended by
striking ``not more than 20 percent of any allotment under
section 2104 for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009'' and inserting ``a fiscal
year allotment under section 2104''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Effective as if included in the
enactment of section 201(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), paragraph
(2) of that section is repealed.
(b) Modification of Allowable Expenditures.--Section
2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii))
is amended by striking ``150'' and inserting ``125''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply to
expenditures made on or after that date.
____________________