[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2230-S2248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 421. A bill to impose a temporary moratorium on the phase out of
the Medicare hospice budget neutrality adjustment factor; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce the Medicare Hospice Protection Act, which will place a one-
year moratorium on a final rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, CMS, reducing payments to hospice providers and
ensure Medicare beneficiaries' access to hospice care.
More than 1.3 million Americans depend on hospice for high quality
and compassionate end-of-life care each year. Unfortunately, on October
1, 2008, CMS issued a final rule to reduce hospice reimbursement rates
in Medicare. This reduction of the hospice wage index will take $2.1
billion out of hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries over the next 5
years.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, is currently
examining the payment system for hospice care. We must allow MedPAC to
complete this important review of the hospice Medicare benefit and make
payment recommendations, which is expected in 2009. The Hospice
Protection Act, introduced by myself and Senators Harkin, Wyden,
Roberts, and Rockefeller, will maintain access to hospice care for
seniors.
Hospice is an efficient and cost-effective health care model. Hospice
provides individuals at the end of their lives, as well as their
families, with comfort and compassion when they are needed most.
Hospice care enables a person to retain his or her dignity and maintain
quality of life during the end of life. An independent Duke University
study in 2007 showed that patients receiving hospice care cost the
Medicare program about $2,300 less than those who did not, resulting in
an annual savings of more than $2 billion.
In April 28, 2008, just before the Notice of Proposed Rule Making was
released, a bipartisan group of more than 40 Senators wrote to
Secretary Leavitt and asked him to stop further action and wait for
MedPAC recommendations on hospice payment issues. On July 28, 2008,
before the final rule was released, Senators Harkin, Wyden, Roberts and
I wrote to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton, to urge him to
stop the regulation from being finalized and to consider the burden
that this regulation will put on the hospice community.
Access to quality compassionate hospice care is critical for Medicare
beneficiaries. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in support of the
Hospice Protection Act and to work toward its swift passage.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Cochran, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Casey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Carper, Mr.
Wyden, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 422. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
the Public Health Service Act to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases
in women; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical
health issue affecting too many women: heart disease, a disease that
surprisingly affects more women than men.
As women, we tend to be great at taking care of everyone around us--
our children, our spouses, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we do not
do nearly as well taking care of ourselves sometimes. I suspect we all
know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms
exhibiting symptoms of heart attack, only to be told they were
suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion.
For women, there are a lot of misconceptions about heart disease, but
here are the facts.
Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men.
Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the
leading cause of death for women in the United States and in Michigan.
According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, a third of
all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease.
One in three adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease.
[[Page S2231]]
Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native
American women, are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke.
These reasons are why Senator Lisa Murkowski and I are reintroducing
the HEART for Women Act in the Senate today to turn these startling
statistics around. Our bill is a three-prong approach to fighting heart
disease by raising awareness, strengthening research, and increasing
access to screening programs for more women. I am so pleased that
nearly a quarter of the Senate is joining us today in sponsoring this
legislation, and that that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Mary Bono Mack
are introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that support material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Heart Association, February 12, 2009.
Heart Disease and Stroke. You're the Cure.
Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of
the American Heart Association and our approximately 22
million volunteers and supporters nationwide, we applaud you
for your re-introduction of the HEART for Women Act.
As your legislation recognizes, too many American women and
their healthcare providers still think of heart disease as a
``man's disease,'' even though about 50,000 more women than
men die from cardiovascular diseases each year. And
unfortunately, while we as a nation have made significant
progress in reducing the death rate from cardiovascular
diseases in men, the death rate in women has barely declined
(17 percent decline in men versus a 2 percent decline in
women over the last 25 years). Even more alarmingly, the
death rate in younger women ages 35 to 44 has actually been
increasing in recent years.
The American Heart Association and its American Stroke
Association division is a strong supporter of the HEART for
Women Act because it would improve the prevention, diagnosis,
and treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other
cardiovascular diseases in women and ultimately help end the
disparity that women face. Your legislation is particularly
important in the current economic recession, where Americans
are losing their jobs and their health insurance coverage and
women may be foregoing needed screening that could aid in the
early identification and treatment of heart disease and
stroke.
More specifically, your legislation would: 1) authorize the
expansion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
WISEWOMAN program, which provides free heart disease and
stroke screening and lifestyle counseling to low-income,
uninsured and underinsured women, to all 50 states; 2)
educate women and healthcare professionals about the risks
women face from cardiovascular diseases; and 3) provide
clinicians and their women patients with better information
about the efficacy and safety of new treatments for heart
disease and stroke.
Thank you again for your leadership on this important
legislation. We look forward to working with you to get the
HEART for Women Act enacted into law in this Congress.
Sincerely,
David A. Josserand,
Chairman of the Board.
Timothy J. Gardner, MD, FAHA,
President.
____
[From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 29, 2008]
Women's Heart Disease: It's the Leading Killer, but Patient Care Lags
That for Men--as Cardiac Science Advances, Women Find Treatment Lagging
(By Judith Graham)
Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in
the U.S., yet a wealth of data shows female cardiac patients
receive inferior medical care compared with men.
Too many physicians still discount the idea that a woman
could be suffering from heart disease, delaying or denying
needed medical interventions, experts note. Most community
hospitals in the U.S. still are not following guidelines for
treating women with heart attacks. And primary care doctors
don't do as much as they could to emphasize prevention.
As a result, women are failing to reap the full benefits of
enormous advances in cardiovascular medicine.
The point was underscored this month by a study published
in the journal Circulation finding that women who have heart
attacks receive fewer recommended treatments in hospitals
than men, including aspirin, beta blocker medications,
angioplasties, clot-busting drugs and surgeries to re-
establish blood flow. Women with the most serious heart
attacks, known as STEMIs, were significantly more likely to
die at a hospital than men.
``We need to do a better job of defining women's symptoms
and treating them aggressively and rapidly, as we do for
men,'' said Dr. Hani Jneid, the study's lead author and
assistant professor of medicine at the Baylor College of
Medicine in Houston.
In Israel, when guidelines have been applied much more
rigorously, the mortality difference between the sexes all
but disappeared, according to a July study in the American
Journal of Medicine.
Outside hospitals, too few internists, family doctors,
obstetricians and gynecologists are implementing
recommendations for preventing heart disease in women,
experts say. Eighty percent of heart attacks in women could
be prevented if women changed their eating habits, got
regular exercise, managed their cholesterol and blood
pressure, and followed other preventive measures.
Although death rates from cardiovascular disease have
fallen, the condition killed 455,000 women in 2006, according
to data from the American Heart Association. Heart disease
causes about 72 percent of cardiovascular fatalities; the
rest are strokes and other related conditions.
The next decade could see major advances as scientists
better understand how the biology of heart disease differs in
women, said Dr. Joan Briller, director of the Heart Disease
in Women program at the University of Illinois Medical Center
at Chicago.
Already, for example, researchers have learned that plaque
deposits tend to be spread more widely in women than in men,
resulting in fewer big blockages in the arteries. That means
standard therapies such as angioplasty are often less
effective in women. Also, women metabolize certain heart
drugs at a different rate than men.
Women should learn about the symptoms of acute heart
disease--which can differ from those in men--respond promptly
if they sense something is wrong, and ``find physicians who
care about them,'' said Dr. Annabelle Volgman, medical
director of the Heart Center for Women at Rush University
Medical Center.
``Ask your doctor: Are you familiar with the guidelines for
the prevention of heart disease in women published in 2007?
Do you follow them? If they say 'no,' find yourself another
doctor,'' she said.
These Chicago-area women learned the importance of that
advice the hard way:
Elizabeth Hein of Chicago was 27 when she began feeling a
tight, squeezing feeling in her chest, ``like a bone was
stuck in my heart,'' she said.
When it didn't go away, Hein visited her primary-care
doctor. ``You're young and healthy; don't worry,'' she
remembers him saying. Take aspirin, he advised.
The disturbing sensation sent Hein to the doctor four more
times over the next six months. She was fine, he repeated.
Hein was in good shape and running 3 to 5 miles daily.
One day at work, Hein felt numbness spread up her arm and
into her neck. Breathing became difficult. ``I'm sitting
there thinking my doctor doesn't believe anything is wrong;
what should I do?'' said Hein, now 38.
At a nearby hospital, Hein remembers, a triage nurse
briefed a skeptical emergency room doctor on her
electrocardiogram.
``She's too young. It can't be a heart attack,'' she heard
the doctor say behind a curtain.
When he examined Hein, he asked what drugs she took.
(Cocaine can simulate heart attack symptoms.) After several
hours, the doctor sent Hein home. She later learned from her
primary-care physician that she had, indeed, had a heart
attack.
``My overwhelming feeling was relief: Finally he
acknowledged something was really wrong,'' said Hein, who
soon changed doctors.
``If your doctor won't listen, fire him and find one who
will,'' she said.
That lesson was brought home painfully three years ago when
Hein's mother began to suffer lower back pain and fatigue.
Her Minnesota doctor sent her to a masseuse. A month later,
when she returned to the doctor because she was retaining
water, he reportedly told her: ``You're an older woman. It's
normal.''
Weeks later, Mabel Hein died of a massive heart attack.
``They missed it because they dismissed her too,'' her
daughter said. ``What I tell other women now is don't let it
happen to you.''
In March 2007, a screening test told Michelle Smietana of
Gurnee her blood pressure and cholesterol levels were
excellent.
``I thought that's fantastic, no problems there,'' said
Smietana, 35.
Eight hours later, she was in a hospital emergency room
with a heart attack.
It began at dinner with a friend, when the computer
specialist felt an achy pain at the right shoulder blade. By
the time she got to her car, the feeling had crept up into
her throat, where it settled in the soft spot under her chin.
``At first I thought I'd hurt a muscle. Then I thought: `Am
I having an allergic reaction?' '' Smietana said. ``All the
time, I felt, whatever this is, I really don't like it.''
Doctors at an urgent care center sent Smietana to Condell
Medical Center after a test for a cardiac marker came back
positive. There Smietana received aggressive treatment and
ultimately discovered that a prolonged coronary artery spasm
had interrupted blood flow through her narrower-than-usual
arteries.
[[Page S2232]]
``My first reaction was a weird feeling of shame, because I
was only 33 and this wasn't supposed to be happening,''
Smietana said. ``Then, I felt kind of guilty, because I'm a
little heavy and a little underexercised.''
Moving on from the episode was terrifying, she said.
``Because it came out of nowhere, you're not sure if it's
going to come back again and if you'll survive the next
time,'' she said.
She credits three months of cardiac rehabilitation with
defeating that fear and learning how to move again and take
better care of herself.
Today, Smietana tells women: ``If your body tells you
something doesn't feel right, listen to it and take it
seriously. I did and I got lucky.''
Helen Pates' grandmother died in her sleep of a massive
heart attack around age 40. Her mother also suffered from
heart disease, as did several maternal relatives.
All this was detailed in her medical records. Yet when
Pates developed persistent fatigue and occasional bouts of
nausea, not one of seven Chicago doctors she consulted
ordered cardiac exams.
Instead, they scanned her liver, her brain, her
gastrointestinal tract. ``They all said the same thing:
`We're not finding anything. You have a demanding career, a
busy life. It's probably stress-related,' '' said Pates, who
lives in Chicago and manages money for people with high net
worth.
Then in 2005 Pates awoke at 3 a.m. with excruciating pain
on the left side of her back and severe shortness of breath.
Crawling out of bed, she managed to drive to Rush University
Medical Center.
A few hours later, surgeons told Pates she had a large
aortic aneurysm--a bulge in her body's main blood vessel--
that was about to rupture. Doctors inserted a stent that
caused the aneurysm to shrink and eventually vanish.
Within three months Pates' energy began to return, and a
year later she was feeling like herself again.
Now 43, Pates said she's upset so many doctors dismissed
her symptoms.
``As a woman, you need to stay on top of your health,'' she
said. ``Make yourself a priority. And if you have a family
history, like I did, and don't feel well, ask your doctor if
you could be having problems with your heart.''
The first time Debbie Dunn collapsed, doctors diagnosed
pneumonia. A high fever, they said, had caused her cold
sweats and thumping heart.
The next three times Dunn felt on the verge of collapse,
her heart racing wildly, medical providers told her she was
having panic attacks.
Eventually a cardiologist gave her a new diagnosis:
supraventricular tachycardia, an abnormally rapid heart
rhythm. ``It's benign,'' Dunn says he told her.
For years, Dunn visited the cardiologist occasionally but
primarily relied on a technique he taught her to control
symptoms. Still, more and more often, she said, ``My heart
felt like tennis shoes in the drier doing flip-flops.''
In 2002, at a restaurant with her husband, Dunn felt what
she calls a ``ripping, burning sensation above my breast.''
Her left arm went numb, then started to ache.
At a nearby hospital, after hours of waiting, a nurse
casually told Dunn she'd had a massive heart attack. A
cardiologist said her heart was profoundly damaged and
operating at about 30 percent of capacity. Dunn was
prescribed medications but felt perpetually exhausted.
``I tried to be a good mom, a good wife, and go back to my
activities but I couldn't keep up,'' said Dunn, 52. Her
cardiologist prescribed another medication for inflammation,
but it didn't help either.
A turning point came when Dunn read an article in O
magazine on women and heart disease. Seeing herself in the
story, she went to see Oprah Winfrey's cardiologist. In the
physician's office, having a cardiac stress test for the
first time, Dunn had another heart attack.
Today, the Libertyville resident has a pacemaker.
Channeling anger over her mistreatment into activism, Dunn
runs a support group for women with heart disease at
Glenbrook Hospital in Glenview and Condell Medical Center and
is starting another at Lake Forest Hospital.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Menendez, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Burr):
S. 423. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
advance appropriations for certain medical care accounts of the
Department of Veterans Affairs by providing two-fiscal year budget
authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this is an important day for Congress, for
veterans, and their families. Today we take another step towards
securing timely, predictable funding for the Veterans Health Care
system. Our plan will create a transparent funding process that will
yield sufficient, on-time funding that will enable VA to care for
veterans more effectively.
Historically, VA's health care system has been plagued by
underfunding. Only a few years ago, VA reported a shortfall of over $1
billion dollars. VA has had to come back to Congress repeatedly to get
supplementary funding for health care costs. Fortunately, in the past
two years, we have begun to change course, by providing record-funding
to meet the increased needs of veterans and their families.
Even with sufficient funding, however, the money for VA has been
provided late in 19 of the past 22 fiscal years. Sometimes, the
appropriations have come as late as February, when VA needed the funds
to spend in the preceding October.
Funding levels and the timing of funding depend on the federal
appropriations process--a process vulnerable to partisan posturing and
last minute changes.
This means that the largest health care system in the country--to
which millions of wounded and indigent veterans turn to for care--does
not know what funds it will receive, when it will be funded, or, in
reality, whether vital programs will receive funding at all. This is no
way to finance a national health care system with such a sacred
obligation.
Today we suggest a better option. I am proud to introduce the Senate-
version of the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Act. This bill would
require that veterans' health care be funded one-year in advance of the
regular appropriations process.
Unlike Medicare and Medicaid, veterans' health care would not be
funded as an entitlement: Congress would still review and manage
funding, as necessary, so as to maintain oversight.
By knowing what funding they will receive one year in advance, VA
would be able to plan more efficiently, and better use taxpayer dollars
to care for veterans.
In addition to improving timeliness, this bill will deliver a more
transparent funding process. A GAO audit and public report to Congress
on VA funding would be provided annually.
I am proud to join a number of our nation's leading veterans'
organizations, and a bipartisan team of supporters from the House and
Senate in calling for this bill's passage. Joining me as cosponsors on
this bill are Senators Snowe, Johnson, Rockefeller, Sanders, Tester,
Begich, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez,
Murkowski, Stabenow, Thune, Vitter, and Mr. Schumer.
Now is the time to secure timely, predictable veterans' health care
funding. Mr. President, and 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
placed in the Record, as follows:
S. 423
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 ``Veterans Health Care Budget
Reform and Transparency Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Title 38, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to furnish hospital and domiciliary care,
medical services, nursing home care, and related services to
eligible and enrolled veterans, but only to the extent that
appropriated resources and facilities are available for such
purposes.
(2) For 19 of the past 22 fiscal years, funds have not been
appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
provision of health care as of the commencement of the new
fiscal year, causing the Department great challenges in
planning and managing care for enrolled veterans, to the
detriment of veterans.
(3) The cumulative effect of insufficient, late, and
unpredictable funding for the Department for health care
endangers the viability of the health care system of the
Department and impairs the specialized health care resources
the Department requires to maintain and improve the health of
sick and disabled veterans.
(4) Appropriations for the health care programs of the
Department have too often proven insufficient over the past
decade, requiring the Secretary to ration health care and
Congress to approve supplemental appropriations for those
programs.
(5) Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding
would ensure the Government meets its obligation to provide
health
[[Page S2233]]
care to sick and disabled veterans and ensure that all
veterans enrolled for health care through the Department have
ready access to timely and high quality care.
(6) Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding
would allow the Department to properly plan for and meet the
needs of veterans.
SEC. 3. TWO-FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL
CARE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
(a) Two-Fiscal Year Budget Authority.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 113 the following new
section:
``Sec. 113A. Two-fiscal year budget authority for certain
medical care accounts
``(a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2011, new
discretionary budget authority provided in an appropriations
Act for the appropriations accounts of the Department
specified in subsection (b) shall be made available for the
fiscal year involved, and shall include new discretionary
budget authority for such appropriations accounts that first
become available for the first fiscal year after such fiscal
year.
``(b) Medical Care Accounts.--The medical care accounts of
the Department specified in this subsection are the medical
care accounts of the Veterans Health Administration as
follows:
``(1) Medical Services.
``(2) Medical Support and Compliance.
``(3) Medical Facilities.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 113 the following new
item:
``113A. Two-fiscal year budget authority for certain medical care
accounts.''.
SEC. 4. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES STUDY ON
ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY OF BASELINE MODEL
PROJECTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS FOR HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES.
(a) Study of Adequacy and Accuracy of Baseline Model
Projections.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the adequacy and accuracy of the
budget projections made by the Enrollee Health Care
Projection Model, its equivalent, or other methodologies, as
utilized for the purpose of estimating and projecting health
care expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs (in
this section referred to as the ``Model'') with respect to
the fiscal year involved and the subsequent four fiscal
years.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the date of each year in
2011, 2012, and 2013, on which the President submits the
budget request for the next fiscal year under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and to the
Secretary a report.
(2) Elements.--Each report under this paragraph shall
include, for the fiscal year beginning in the year in which
such report is submitted, the following:
(A) A statement whether the amount requested in the budget
of the President for expenditures of the Department for
health care in such fiscal year is consistent with
anticipated expenditures of the Department for health care in
such fiscal year as determined utilizing the Model.
(B) The basis for such statement.
(C) Such additional information as the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
(3) Availability to the public.--Each report submitted
under this subsection shall also be made available to the
public.
(4) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(A) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Appropriations,
and the Budget of the Senate; and
(B) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Appropriations,
and the Budget of the House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown, Mr. Menendez,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye,
and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 424. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting
permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner
as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize
immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Uniting
American Families Act. This legislation will allow U.S. citizens and
legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex
partners to come to the United States under our family immigration
system. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Kerry, Schumer, Feingold, Wyden,
Cardin, Menendez, Murray, Brown, Akaka, and Lautenberg for their
support of this legislation. I hope that the Senate will act to
demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law by
passing this measure.
I am also grateful that Congressman Nadler is introducing this same
measure in the House of Representatives. Congressman Nadler has been a
steady champion of this legislation, and I commend his efforts.
When the marker for the Senate's comprehensive immigration
legislation was introduced at the beginning of this Congress, I said
that among the changes needed in our immigration laws is equality for
gay and lesbian Americans. The burdens and benefits of the laws created
by the elected officials who represent all Americans should be shared
equally, and without discrimination. With an historic election behind
us, and the promise of a more just, peaceful, and prosperous world
ahead of us, let us begin to break down the barriers that still remain
for so many American citizens.
Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American
citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which
accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted
annually by the United States. As a result, gay Americans who are in
this situation must either live apart from their partners, or leave the
country if they want to live with them legally and permanently.
According to the most recent census, there are approximately 35,000 bi-
national, same-sex couples living in the United States. It is all but
certain that many of these couples will eventually be forced to make a
choice with which no American should be faced--to choose between the
country they love and the person they love.
Some have expressed concern that providing this equality in our
immigration law will lead to more immigration fraud. At best these
concerns are misguided, and at worst they are a pretext for
discrimination. This bill retains strong protections against fraud
already in immigration law. To qualify as a permanent partner,
petitioners must prove that they are at least 18-years-old and are in a
committed, financially interdependent relationship with another adult
in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment. They must also
prove that they are not married to, or in a permanent partnership with,
anyone other than that person, and are unable to contract with that
person in a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality
Act. Proof could include sworn affidavits from friends and family and
documentation of financial interdependence. Penalties for fraud would
be the same as penalties for marriage fraud--up to five years in prison
and $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for
the foreign partner. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation
should play no role in guarding against those who seek to abuse our
immigration laws.
Like many people across the country, there are Vermonters whose
partners are foreign nationals and who feel abandoned by our laws in
this area: Vermonters like Gordon Stewart who has come to talk to me
about the unfairness of our current laws, or a committed, loving couple
of 24 years in Brattleboro, VT, who travel back and forth between
Vermont and England, and who wish nothing more than to be able to be
together in the United States. This bill would allow them, and other
gay and lesbian Americans throughout our Nation who have felt that our
immigration laws are discriminatory, to be a fuller part of our
society. The promotion of family unity has long been part of Federal
immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all
Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones.
The idea that immigration benefits should be extended to same-sex
couples is not a novel one. Many nations have come to recognize that
their respective immigration laws should respect family unity,
regardless of a person's sexual orientation. Indeed, 16 of our closest
allies--Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South
Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom--recognize same-sex couples for
immigration purposes.
[[Page S2234]]
I would ask all Senators to take heed of what my friend, Congressman
John Lewis has said about discrimination against gay and lesbian
Americans, when he wrote in 2003: ``Rather than divide and
discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all
one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American
family. Let us recognize that the gay people living in our house share
the same hopes, troubles, and dreams. It's time we treated them as
equals, as family.'' Congressman Lewis is right. I hope all Senators
will join me in supporting equality for all Americans and their loved
ones.
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
placed in the Record, as follows:
S. 424
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Uniting
American Families Act of 2009''.
(b) Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act.--Except
as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, if an
amendment or repeal is expressed as the amendment or repeal
of a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to that section or provision in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act;
table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions of permanent partner and permanent partnership.
Sec. 3. Worldwide level of immigration.
Sec. 4. Numerical limitations on individual foreign states.
Sec. 5. Allocation of immigrant visas.
Sec. 6. Procedure for granting immigrant status.
Sec. 7. Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency
situation refugees.
Sec. 8. Asylum.
Sec. 9. Adjustment of status of refugees.
Sec. 10. Inadmissible aliens.
Sec. 11. Nonimmigrant status for permanent partners awaiting the
availability of an immigrant visa.
Sec. 12. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
spouses, permanent partners, and sons and daughters.
Sec. 13. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and children.
Sec. 14. Deportable aliens.
Sec. 15. Removal proceedings.
Sec. 16. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status.
Sec. 17. Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person
admitted for permanent residence.
Sec. 18. Application of criminal penalties to for misrepresentation and
concealment of facts regarding permanent partnerships.
Sec. 19. Requirements as to residence, good moral character, attachment
to the principles of the Constitution.
Sec. 20. Application of family unity provisions to permanent partners
of certain LIFE Act beneficiaries.
Sec. 21. Application to Cuban Adjustment Act.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS OF PERMANENT PARTNER AND PERMANENT
PARTNERSHIP.
Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (15)(K)(ii), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(52) The term `permanent partner' means an individual 18
years of age or older who--
``(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another
individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals
intend a lifelong commitment;
``(B) is financially interdependent with that other
individual;
``(C) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership
with, any individual other than that other individual;
``(D) is unable to contract with that other individual a
marriage cognizable under this Act; and
``(E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood
relation of that other individual.
``(53) The term `permanent partnership' means the
relationship that exists between 2 permanent partners.''.
SEC. 3. WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION.
Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is
amended--
(1) by ``spouse'' each place it appears and inserting
``spouse or permanent partner'';
(2) by striking ``spouses'' and inserting ``spouse,
permanent partner,'';
(3) by inserting ``(or, in the case of a permanent
partnership, whose permanent partnership was not
terminated)'' after ``was not legally separated from the
citizen''; and
(4) by striking ``remarries.'' and inserting ``remarries or
enters a permanent partnership with another person.''.
SEC. 4. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES.
(a) Per Country Levels.--Section 202(a)(4) (8 U.S.C.
1152(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses'';
(2) in the heading of subparagraph (A), by inserting ``,
permanent partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
(3) in the heading of subparagraph (C), by striking ``and
daughters'' inserting ``without permanent partners and
unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
(b) Rules for Chargeability.--Section 202(b)(2) (8 U.S.C.
1152(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``his spouse'' and inserting ``his or her
spouse or permanent partner'';
(2) by striking ``such spouse'' each place it appears and
inserting ``such spouse or permanent partner''; and
(3) by inserting ``or permanent partners'' after ``husband
and wife''.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS.
(a) Preference Allocation for Family Members of Permanent
Resident Aliens.--Section 203(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the
following:
``(2) Spouses, permanent partners, unmarried sons without
permanent partners, and unmarried daughters without permanent
partners of permanent resident aliens.--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or unmarried
daughters'' and inserting ``without permanent partners or the
unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
(b) Preference Allocation for Sons and Daughters of
Citizens.--Section 203(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(3)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the
following:
``(2) Married sons and daughters of citizens and sons and
daughters with permanent partners of citizens.--''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or sons or daughters with permanent
partners,'' after ``daughters''.
(c) Employment Creation.--Section 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) (8
U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
(d) Treatment of Family Members.--Section 203(d) (8 U.S.C.
1153(d)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``section
101(b)(1)''; and
(2) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``the
spouse''.
SEC. 6. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STATUS.
(a) Classification Petitions.--Section 204(a)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'';
(B) in clause (iii)--
(i) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(ii) in subclause (I), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears;
(C) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``permanent partner,''
after ``is the spouse,'';
(D) in clause (vi)--
(i) by inserting ``or termination of the permanent
partnership'' after ``divorce''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after
``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears;
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) in subclause (I)(aa), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(ii) in subclause (I)(bb), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' the first place it appears;
and
(iii) in subclause (II)(aa), by inserting ``(or the
termination of the permanent partnership)'' after
``termination of the marriage''.
(b) Immigration Fraud Prevention.--Section 204(c) (8 U.S.C.
1154(c)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'' each place it appears.
SEC. 7. ANNUAL ADMISSION OF REFUGEES AND ADMISSION OF
EMERGENCY SITUATION REFUGEES.
Section 207(c) (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``, permanent partner's,'' after
``spouse's''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, permanent partner,''
after ``spouse''.
SEC. 8. ASYLUM.
Section 208(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES.
Section 209(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 10. INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.--
Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(D)(iv), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,'';
[[Page S2235]]
(2) in paragraph (4)(C)(i)(I), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse'';
(3) in paragraph (6)(E)(ii), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
(4) in paragraph (9)(B)(v), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(b) Waivers.--Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by inserting ``permanent partner,''
after ``spouse,''; and
(2) in paragraph (12), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(c) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Health-Related Grounds.--
Section 212(g)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(d) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Criminal and Related
Grounds.--Section 212(h)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)) is
amended by inserting ``permanent partner,'' after
``spouse,''.
(e) Waiver of Inadmissibility for Misrepresentation.--
Section 212(i)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``permanent partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
SEC. 11. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS AWAITING
THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.
Section 214(r) (8 U.S.C. 1184(r)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears.
SEC. 12. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN
ALIEN SPOUSES, PERMANENT PARTNERS, AND SONS AND
DAUGHTERS.
(a) Section Heading.--
(1) In general.--The heading for section 216 (8 U.S.C.
1186a) is amended by striking ``and sons'' and inserting ``,
permanent partners, sons, '' after
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by amending the item relating to section 216 to read as
follows:
``Sec. 216. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
spouses, permanent partners, sons, and daughters.''.
(b) In General.--Section 216(a) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or permanent
partner'' after ``spouse'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
(c) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying
Marriage Improper.--Section 216(b) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``or Permanent
Partnership'' after ``Marriage''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by inserting ``or has ceased to satisfy the criteria
for being considered a permanent partnership under this
Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse''.
(d) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for
Removal of Condition.--Section 216(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(C),
(4)(B), and (4)(C), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'' each place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A), (3)(D), (4)(B), and (4)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after ``marriage''
each place it appears.
(e) Contents of Petition.--Section 216(d)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1186a(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'';
(ii) in subclause (I), by inserting before the comma at the
end ``, or is a permanent partnership recognized under this
Act'';
(iii) in subclause (II)--
(I) by inserting ``or has not ceased to satisfy the
criteria for being considered a permanent partnership under
this Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
(II) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse'';
(C) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 216(g) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''.
SEC. 13. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN
ALIEN ENTREPRENEURS, SPOUSES, PERMANENT
PARTNERS, AND CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
(2) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(B), and (2)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each
place it appears.
(b) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying
Entrepreneurship Improper.--Section 216A(b)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1186b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'' in the matter following subparagraph (C).
(c) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for
Removal of Condition.--Section 216A(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)) is
amended, in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), and (3)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 216A(f)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(f)(2))
is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse'' each place it appears.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by amending the item relating to section 216A to read as
follows:
``Sec. 216A. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and
children.''.
SEC. 14. DEPORTABLE ALIENS.
Section 237(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting ``or permanent
partners'' after ``spouses'' each place it appears;
(2) in subparagraphs (E)(ii), (E)(iii), and (H)(i)(I), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'';
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) Permanent partnership fraud.--An alien shall be
considered to be deportable as having procured a visa or
other documentation by fraud (within the meaning of section
212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and to be in the United States in violation
of this Act (within the meaning of subparagraph (B)) if--
``(i) the alien obtains any admission to the United States
with an immigrant visa or other documentation procured on the
basis of a permanent partnership entered into less than 2
years before such admission and which, within 2 years
subsequent to such admission, is terminated because the
criteria for permanent partnership are no longer fulfilled,
unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Homeland Security that such permanent
partnership was not contracted for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws; or
``(ii) it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
Homeland Security that the alien has failed or refused to
fulfill the alien's permanent partnership, which the
Secretary of Homeland Security determines was made for the
purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an
immigrant.''; and
(4) in paragraphs (2)(E)(i) and (3)(C)(ii), by inserting
``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each place it
appears.
SEC. 15. REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
Section 240 (8 U.S.C. 1229a) is amended--
(1) in the heading of subsection (c)(7)(C)(iv), by
inserting ``permanent partners,'' after ``spouses,''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
SEC. 16. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL; ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.
Section 240A(b) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(D), by inserting ``or permanent
partner'' after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse'' each place it appears.
SEC. 17. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF
PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
(a) Prohibition on Adjustment of Status.--Section 245(d) (8
U.S.C. 1255(d)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''.
(b) Avoiding Immigration Fraud.--Section 245(e) (8 U.S.C.
1255(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) Paragraph (1) and section 204(g) shall not apply
with respect to a permanent partnership if the alien
establishes by clear and convincing evidence to the
satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security that--
``(i) the permanent partnership was entered into in good
faith and in accordance with section 101(a)(52);
``(ii) the permanent partnership was not entered into for
the purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an
immigrant; and
``(iii) no fee or other consideration was given (other than
a fee or other consideration to an attorney for assistance in
preparation of a lawful petition) for the filing of a
petition under section 204(a) or 214(d) with respect to the
alien permanent partner.
``(B) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations that
provide for only 1 level of administrative appellate review
for each alien under subparagraph (A).''.
(c) Adjustment of Status for Certain Aliens Paying Fee.--
Section 245(i)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
[[Page S2236]]
SEC. 18. APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES TO FOR
MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
REGARDING PERMANENT PARTNERSHIPS.
Section 275(c) (8 U.S.C. 1325(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage
or permanent partnership for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, fined not more than $250,000, or both.''.
SEC. 19. REQUIREMENTS AS TO RESIDENCE, GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
Section 316(b) (8 U.S.C. 1427(b)) is amended by inserting
``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 20. APPLICATION OF FAMILY UNITY PROVISIONS TO PERMANENT
PARTNERS OF CERTAIN LIFE ACT BENEFICIARIES.
Section 1504 of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000 (division B
of Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763-325) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``, PERMANENT PARTNERS,''
after ``SPOUSES'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(3) in each of subsections (b) and (c)--
(A) in each of the subsection headings, by inserting ``,
Permanent Partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
(B) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears.
SEC. 21. APPLICATION TO CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT.
(a) In General.--The first section of Public Law 89-732 (8
U.S.C. 1255 note) is amended--
(1) in the next to last sentence, by inserting ``,
permanent partner,'' after ``spouse'' the first 2 places it
appears; and
(2) in the last sentence, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(51)(D) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(51)(D)) is amended by striking ``or spouse'' and
inserting ``, spouse, or permanent partner''.
______
By Mr. BROWN:
S. 425. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for the establishment of a traceability system for food, to
amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspections
Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for improved public health and food safety
through enhanced enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, recent events involving E. coli- and
salmonella-tainted foods demonstrate once again that our country's food
inspection, tracking, and safety system is unable to adequately protect
American consumers. At a time when too many Ohioans are struggling to
put food on their tables, it is simply unacceptable that they also have
to worry about the safety of that food.
The most recent food-borne illness outbreak was identified as a
salmonella contamination linked on January 12, 2009 to the Peanut
Corporation of America's, PCA, plant in Blakely, GA. Since October of
last year, this salmonella outbreak has sickened 600 people in 43
states. More an 1,900 products have been recalled--representing one of
the largest food recalls in our Nation's history. Yesterday, the
nationwide death toll rose to nine. Ohio has reported 92 cases linked
to this outbreak and two deaths, including this week's death of a
Medina woman.
Unfortunately, the current salmonella outbreak is not the only food-
borne illness outbreak to have plagued our Nation in recent years. Just
last year, Nebraska beef, an Omaha slaughterhouse, issued a recall of
5.3 million pounds of meat after widespread reports indicated that its
meat was tainted with the sometimes-deadly strain of E. coli 0157:H7
bacteria. Health officials confirmed that 21 Ohioans, and 45 people in
total, were made ill by this outbreak.
The current salmonella outbreak--taken alone--is a tragedy. The
current salmonella outbreak--taken in combination with recent beef,
spinach, and jalapeno pepper disease outbreaks, which have sickened and
killed many--is evidence of a complete break-down in our nation's food
safety system.
More can--and must--be done to improve the safety of our food supply.
It is for this reason that I am introducing legislation today to
address some of the major problems plaguing the Food and Drug
Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, the
Federal agencies tasked with overseeing and protecting our nation's
food supply.
The bill I am introducing today, the Food Safety and Tracking
Improvement Act, closely mirrors legislation that I introduced in the
110th Congress, and would give the Federal Government the authority it
needs to protect American consumers. It would give the Government the
authority to recall tainted food and the tools to track the source of
food outbreaks. Most importantly, it would save lives by ensuring a
swift and thorough Federal response to contamination outbreaks.
I think most Americans would be alarmed to learn that the. Federal
government does not currently have the authority to issue a mandatory
recall of contaminated food. Instead, America's food safety system
relies on voluntary recalls and self-policing by industry. The top
priority for both USDA and FDA should be to protect the public's
health--a mission that will sometimes require swift and decisive action
that, let's face it, may not be to industry's liking.
In the most recent outbreak, PCA was identified as the source of the
salmonella outbreak on January 12, 2009. While PCA issued a voluntary
recall of a limited number of peanut butter products the next day, it
wasn't until 16 days later that PCA expanded its recall to encompass
all peanut and peanut products processed at its Georgia facility.
In the Nebraska Beef case, had USDA been able to issue a mandatory
recall once it became clear that consumers' safety was at risk, unsafe
food would have been taken off of the shelves quicker and fewer
citizens would have purchased and consumed the contaminated meat.
We will never know how many more people consumed dangerous foods in
the 16 days that PCA kept its products on the market, or in the weeks
that Nebraska Beef decided to keep selling its products. But we do know
that allowing private companies to unilaterally decide whether or not
to recall their products is not in the best interest of our country. We
must provide the relevant Federal agencies with mandatory recall
authority so that they can act swiftly and efficiently to ensure that
the public's safety is not compromised.
It is vital that FDA have the authority to remove dangerous products
from grocery store shelves, from school cafeterias, and from nursing
home dinner trays as soon as regulators believe a threat exists. It is
also vital that we establish a Federal program to allow for quick and
accurate tracing of tainted food back to the source of the problem. If
the United States Postal Service can track a package from my office in
Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same
for food products.
My legislation would provide $40 million over three years for the FDA
to set up a national traceability system for all food under its
jurisdiction. This system would allow the Federal government to quickly
identify the origin of contaminated food and would be developed by an
Advisory Committee comprised of consumer advocates, industry leaders,
and relevant representatives from FDA and USDA. The Committee would
determine which tracking mechanisms, such as tracking numbers,
electronic barcodes, and Federal databases, should be employed to
protect consumers.
I have partnered in these initiatives with Representative Diana
DeGette, a close colleague of mine in the House, who has long been an
advocate of providing our food safety regulators with these much-needed
powers.
The time to reform our Nation's food safety system is now. We cannot
wait for another peanut or beef or spinach disaster. It is the
responsibility of FDA and USDA to protect our nation's food supply and
it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to ensure that
these agencies have the tools and authority they need to do their job.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of the Food Safety
and Tracking Improvement Act.
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 426. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
provide for progressive indexing and longevity indexing of Social
Security old-age insurance benefits for newly retired and aged
surviving spouses to ensure the future solvency of the Social Security
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S2237]]
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are awaiting the conference report on
the stimulus package. The papers and the airwaves are full of the fact
that this will be the largest expenditure we have made in peacetime
perhaps in our history.
I think it well, as we wait for the details of the package, for us to
pause for a moment and take a longer look, beyond the recession, beyond
the financial circumstances we are facing at the moment, and look down
the road at what we are facing as a nation as a whole.
So I am going to make a historic pattern today and then introduce, at
the end, a bill I believe is necessary for us to deal with our
financial problems. Let's go back a moment in history to the year 1966.
Why do I pick 1966? Because that was the year we significantly expanded
the entitlement spending in the United States. That was the year we
adopted Medicare as a Federal program.
As you see from the chart, at that time the mandatory spending
constituted 26 percent of the budget. By ``mandatory,'' I mean spending
that we have to do. People are entitled to receive that money whether
we have the money or not; it is mandatory under the law.
The largest portion of the mandatory spending in 1966 was Social
Security.
We were paying roughly 7 percent of our budget for interest. We had
nondefense discretionary spending which was 23 percent. The big item,
the big ticket item that dominated the budget in 1966 was defense. It
constituted 44 percent of Federal spending in 1966.
Let's see what has happened since that time. Let's see where we are
today. In fiscal 2008, this is where we are. The mandatory spending has
grown from 26 percent to 54 percent. Interest costs are roughly the
same. They were 7 percent; now they are 8. Nondiscretionary spending
has shrunk to 17 percent. Defense discretionary, even though we are in
a wartime, is 21 percent. It is clear the mandatory spending is taking
over control of the Federal budget. And interest costs, of course, are
mandatory. We owe those interest costs.
If you add the two together, 54 and 8, you get 62 percent of the
Federal budget beyond the control of Congress. That is, when we pass
the appropriations bills, when we make our decisions what to spend
money for, we are spending money in the minority; whereas, 62 percent
majority is out of our control. When you take away the defense spending
and assume that has a semimandatory aspect to it and put defense
spending in the mix, that means the Congress only has control of 17
percent of the budget, an amazing change in the roughly 40 years from
1966 until today.
What does the future look like? I must make the point that every
projection we make around here is wrong. Every projection is an
educated guess. But the educated guess of what will happen 10 years
from now is that mandatory spending will have grown to 61 percent and
interest costs to 10 percent. That is 71. The Congressional Budget
Office won't make a guess as to the divide between defense and
nondefense discretionary spending. So all discretionary spending will
be 29 percent, if we divide it in half, as it has historically been.
That means the Congress, just 10 years from now, will only control 10
percent of the Federal budget. All the rest of it will be on automatic
pilot. That is a startling thing to look forward to.
So as we talk about the stimulus package, we need to pause and pay a
little attention to the entitlement spending that will go on and the
kind of spending that will be built up, and we are adding to that with
this stimulus.
Here it is in the projections of what it will be. It constitutes a
wave. Indeed, it has been referred to almost as a tsunami of spending.
It is broken down into the three primary sources of mandatory spending,
the three biggest entitlements. At the bottom is the one that is the
biggest now, and that is Social Security. But Social Security does not
grow as fast as the next one, which is Medicare. And then on top of
that is Medicaid. One can see this tsunami of spending will take our
mandatory spending, which at the moment is less than 10 percent of GDP,
up to more than 20 percent of GDP.
Let me show another chart that illustrates the same point in a
slightly different way. You have the same entitlements. We have added
in this chart discretionary spending. The solid line across is the
average revenue of the Federal Government. It is recorded in percentage
of GDP. We have historically had a revenue average of 18.4 percent of
GDP. As we can see in 2007, the expenditures were slightly above that
line. The largest portion of the expenditure was the combination of
defense and nondefense discretionary spending. But the projection, as
you go out, you see that at some point the entitlements will take over
every dime we take in. The largest portion of it will be Medicare.
Social Security will still be there. Medicaid will still be there.
Discretionary spending will shrink even further as a percentage of what
we are dealing with.
Why is this happening? Is this some kind of a plot that somebody is
involved in? No. This is a result of the demographic changes that are
occurring in our country. This chart summarizes it with the headline:
``Americans Are Getting Older.''
If you go back to 1950, the percentage of Americans who were age 65
or older was about 7 percent. It grew, the percentage, at a relatively
slow level and then actually began to shrink. Why did it begin to
shrink, the percentage of Americans 65 and over? This is a reflection
of the Great Depression. People had fewer children in the Great
Depression. So it follows that 65 years later, there were fewer people
who were of retirement age. But following the Great Depression, you had
the Second World War and then, when people came home from war, you had
what historians refer to as the baby boom. All of those who came as a
consequence of that are called the boomers.
Starting in 2008, which is now history, the line started upward in a
dramatic fashion. In the next 20 years, we are going to see something
happen that has never happened in American history. In the next 20
years, the percentage of Americans who are over 65 is going to double.
That is what is driving all the numbers I put up before, all the
changes in entitlement spending. These people are already born. This is
not a projection that depends on guesses. This is something we can be
sure of because the demographics of these folks are already there.
Now the projection is that 20 years from now, when the baby boomers
finish retiring, the rate of increase will slow down again and go back
to the somewhat gentle rate it was before we got into this situation.
But that is the reality we are dealing with. In the next 20 years, the
percentage of Americans who are 65 or over is going to double.
Let's look at some of the detail behind these demographics. Seniors
are living longer. Not only are we going to get more of them, but they
are living longer. That is why that trend is not going to turn down
once the baby boomers have been absorbed. If you go back to 1940, after
you reached 65 in 1940, if you were a male, your life expectancy was
another 12 years, female 13. The chart shows how it has changed. Now if
you are male and you reach 65, your life expectancy is another 16
years. If you are female, it is another 19 years. And roughly a short
decade away, a male will go to 18 and female to 21. That means all the
entitlement programs geared toward our senior citizens are going to be
tapped into for many more years than was the case when they were put in
place.
If we go back to the history of Social Security, we realize Social
Security was something of a lottery. When Social Security started in
the 1930s, roughly half of American workers did not survive until they
were 65. So it was a lottery with 100 percent of the people paying in
and only 50 percent taking anything out. Those who paid in got nothing
for having done so. Those who survived to 65 got the benefit of their
survival. Now you see they are living longer today, something like 75
or 80 percent of workers who join the workforce at age 20 are still
alive at 65, so the lottery doesn't work anymore. Instead of half the
people paying into the lottery, not getting anything out, you have more
than three-quarters of the people who pay into the lottery getting
something out. Then, once they get it, they get it for longer. The life
expectancy of Americans is going up, as was shown in the last chart.
This
[[Page S2238]]
shows the trend lines for male and female.
Again, in 1940, the life expectancy of Americans who had reached 65
was, for males, about 75. When we get out into the future, it will be
86. Put those two facts together. More people survive to 65 and, then,
more people who get into the pool over 65 stay there for more years.
All this means that the financial structure of Social Security is
simply unsustainable. Social Security cannot deal with these
demographic changes. This is not a Republican plot or a Democratic
plot. This is the demographics of the reality of the fact that
Americans are healthier, living longer, and surviving to older age. So
you get this reaction to the Social Security situation.
We go to the next chart that shows how Social Security works, in
terms of the lottery I was discussing. In 1945, the program was still
in its infancy. So this is a bit of a distortion. There were 42 people
working and paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out.
As the program matured and more and more of the workers retired, this
number very appropriately came down. By 1950, there were still 17
workers paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out.
Today there are three workers paying into the program for every one
drawing out. With the demographic realities I described in the previous
charts, we are looking at a time when there will be two workers for
every retiree. That means, if the retiree is going to take out $1,000 a
month, each worker has to be putting in $500 a month in order to make
that happen and for a long period of time. This is how we have dealt
with this demographic change throughout our history. We have dealt with
it by raising taxes. Every step along the way, as the number of workers
to retirees has gone down, the amount of taxes every worker pays has
gone up.
Here is the history of the payroll tax increases: In 1937, you paid
taxes on $3,000. That was it. Now it is $106,000. It has gone up and up
all the way through.
This is unsustainable. You cannot continue to deal with the
demographic changes in Social Security by simply ratcheting up the
taxes. You have to do something to stabilize Social Security in a way
that it will be there for our children and our grandchildren.
There is a reported survey--I have seen it many places, but I have
never seen the source--that says a poll shows that among the young
people in America, more believe in the existence of UFOs than believe
Social Security will be available for them when they retire. I have
grandmothers come up to me spontaneously on the streets in Utah and
tell me how concerned they are their children and grandchildren will
not have Social Security. I have people entering the workforce who come
to me and say: Senator, my biggest question is, Will Social Security be
there for me? And, increasingly, people are sure it is not.
The legislation I introduce today is geared to make sure Social
Security will be there for our children and our grandchildren and that
it will be there at roughly the same level it is for us; that is, they
will not have to accept significantly less than we accept in order to
make this program work.
How do we do that in the face of this demographic challenge? How is
that possible? Well, one of our colleagues in the Senate for many
years, Senator Pat Moynihan of New York, had the answer. Senator
Moynihan looked back on how Social Security benefits were calculated,
and he said: We calculate the increase in Social Security benefits on
the wrong base. I do not want to get too technical, but the term that
applies is ``wage-based'' increases for cost of living. Senator
Moynihan pointed out the cost of living is not going up as rapidly as
wages are. So if we would just adjust the base from wage base to cost-
of-living base, a true cost-of-living base--that means we would slow
down the rate of growth in benefits, and in slowing down the rate of
growth in benefits in that fashion, we would solve the problem. It
would become solvent.
That is fine. But what if you are someone who depends upon Social
Security as your sole source of retirement? It was never intended that
would be the case when it was put in place, but it has become that way
for too many Americans. If they were to give up the benefit that comes
from an overpayment--that is the form of wage-based adjustments--to go
to the true payment of cost of increasing, which is the cost of the
Consumer Price Index, it would hurt them. They would give up
significant benefits. On the other hand, if you look at people such as
Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey, they do not really need to have
Social Security go beyond the true increase in cost of living.
So the solution is to say, for those who are at the bottom of the
economic ladder, we keep Social Security benefits exactly as they are.
For Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey and those who are at the exact top
end of the economic ladder, we take Senator Moynihan's idea and we put
it in place and say: You will have to struggle by with a Social
Security plan based on the actual increase in cost of living rather
than an inflated increase in cost of living.
What about those of us who are in between, the people at the bottom
and the people at the very top? For those of us who fall in between
those two areas, we get a mix, a blend, if you will, of wage base or
cost-of-living base. It is called progressive indexing. All of the
details are available in hearings that have been held on this subject
which I chaired when I was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and
in other publications that have addressed this question.
What will this do to the actual benefits of the people in Social
Security? We have asked the Social Security Administration to tell us.
Now, again, these are projections, and as projections, they are subject
to some kind of challenge. But they are the best analysis that people
can make.
We start out with people who are currently 55; that is, only 10 years
away from the 65 retirement date, although Social Security, by the time
they get there, will be at 67. But what is going to happen to them
under the bill I am introducing?
As shown on this chart, the dark bar is what a 2009 retiree will get.
The red bar is what a 2019 retiree will get. These are in constant
dollars; that is, an adjustment has been made for inflation. You see in
every instance, the 2019 retiree will get more than the 2009 retiree.
Now, this is for the low earner. These are the people who are at the
bottom third of our economic structure. Then the medium earner, and the
high earner. So you see, in every case, people are made whole and
protected.
This last chart is for the max earner, the maximum earner, who, quite
frankly, probably does not exist. That would assume that somebody
entered the workforce at age 20, earned $106,000 a year the first year,
and continued to earn that level going on up through his entire career.
The maximum he could possibly draw from Social Security: that would be
that one.
But 82 percent of Americans fall in these two categories. So for
someone age 55, under this bill, they come out just fine. They have
nothing they should worry about.
Well, what about somebody who is 45, a little bit younger? What
happens to them? Again, these are the estimates made by the Social
Security Administration. Once again, the low earners, they do better
under the Bennett plan. The medium earners, they do better under the
Bennett plan. The high earners, virtually the same under the Bennett
plan.
We can make the statement that we are going to hold everybody
harmless. We will adjust Social Security in a way that makes it
solvent, while at the same time preserving the same level of benefits
we have for those of us who are currently drawing Social Security
benefits, and we can see the same level of benefits would be available
to those who come after us.
We will reach out all the way to 2075 and see what the estimates are
from the Social Security Administration. These are people who will be
born in 2010. It is a little hard to make a projection as to how much
money they will have when they are not alive yet, but the projections
are made.
Once again, under the bill I am introducing today, in 2075, the
people at the bottom will do substantially better comparing today's
benefit of $800 to the potential benefit of nearly $1,300 because they
are the ones who are held harmless in the way Social Security benefits
are currently calculated. So
[[Page S2239]]
they will get a significant position of significantly greater benefit
than they do under current law. The medium earner--well, they also will
do better. The high earner also will do better. Even the max earner
will come out essentially the same.
Now, I cannot guarantee these numbers. You cannot guarantee with any
certainty what the numbers are going to be in 2075. But the fact is
that the Social Security Administration, looking over a past version of
this bill I have introduced, has said everyone can look forward with
some certainty--this is my description of it, not their words--everyone
can look forward with some certainty to seeing that his or her Social
Security benefits will be roughly the same as the benefits that are
being paid to retirees today, and the system will be solvent, not
requiring any increase in taxes throughout the life of the system.
We have had a lot of debates about Social Security, and we have had a
lot of proposals about Social Security. To my knowledge, this is the
only one that can say the two things I have just said; that is, that
everybody's benefit, wherever they fall on the economic continuum, will
be held at roughly the same level as today's benefit--in the case of
the low earners, substantially better--and it can be done without
raising any taxes. That is why we call this the Social Security
Solvency Act.
Let me go back to the charts I put up in the beginning to stress once
again the importance of bringing entitlements under control.
As shown on this chart, this is where we were in 1966 before
entitlements started to get out of control. We in the Congress
controlled 23 percent of the budget in nondefense discretionary
spending and 44 percent of the budget in defense spending. So we
controlled the majority. Today, we have shrunk that to the point where
we control only 17 percent of the Federal budget, with 21 percent for
defense spending, and the mandatory and interest costs have grown to a
majority--a significant majority. Looking ahead just 10 years, if we do
not do something about the entitlements, the mandatory spending will be
61 percent, 71 percent when you add interest costs. If you divide
defense and nondefense in this historic pattern, we will only have 15
percent of the entire Federal budget under our control for nondefense
discretionary spending.
We are talking about the largest single expenditure in our peacetime
history. As we adopt it, we should do so against the backdrop of what
we are looking at in mandatory spending down the road and realize if we
are going to be able to afford this stimulus package, we have to have
the courage to tackle mandatory spending at the same time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I simply want
to say to Senator Bennett, my partner lo these many years in the
bipartisan effort to fix health care, how much I appreciate his
leadership on the Social Security issue.
I think everybody understands what the demographics are all about. In
fact, the demographics on Social Security are very similar to the
demographics on health care. Yet Senator Bennett has been out there
prosecuting the case of trying to bring the Senate together for a
bipartisan approach on Social Security, just as we have sought to do on
health care.
I want to let the Senator from Utah know how much I am looking
forward to working with him on this issue. I think he knows there are a
number of us who believe this is going to take a bipartisan effort.
Like most of the big issues, if you are going to get an enduring
reform, bring the country together, you have to take the pursuit that
Senator Bennett has followed, which is to do your homework and get the
financial underpinnings in place.
I commend my colleague for all his effort to zero the attention of
the Senate in on the Social Security question. I am looking forward to
working with him in partnership on this issue as well as continuing our
health care effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Oregon for his kind words. He was not here when I put up one chart
which has now been taken away that showed the tsunami of entitlement
spending, consisting of a band of three programs. The largest portion
of that tsunami band was made up of health care spending. I will
confess to having taken the easy route. Social Security is the easiest
one to fix because we can make the kinds of changes I described here
that go back to the effort started by Senator Moynihan.
Here is the chart. We can see Social Security is the easy one and
eventually the small one. Medicare and Medicaid are the ones that are
going to overwhelm us. They are the most difficult ones to fix.
So I am honored to have the Senator from Oregon say what he has to
say because he has been the leader in recognizing that this challenge;
that is, the challenge of dealing with the health care costs, is the
tougher challenge, but, as with most tough challenges, it is also the
one that will produce the biggest reward. It is where the biggest
opportunity lies.
As I have said many times and repeated here on the floor of the
Senate, one of the things I realized while working with the Senator
from Oregon is that the best way to get all of these costs under
control and turn these lines downward is to get quality going in our
health care program. The bill I have had the honor to cosponsor, along
with the Senator from Oregon, is focused on getting proper quality into
our health care system.
If the Senator from Oregon is successful, with whatever help I can
give him along with those others who have joined us, he will have made
a significant contribution to our country, not only in terms of the
benefits that come from having done health care right but from the
economic impact of having done health care right. He will have made it
possible for us to even consider such expenditures as a target in the
stimulus package because this is the backdrop against which we are
going to have to pay for those. So I thank the Senator from Oregon for
his kind words, but I thank him even more for his valiant effort and
his leadership on the whole issue of trying to deal with the health
care challenge.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would close this discussion with Senator
Bennett by saying that I think, having listened to his comments with
respect to Social Security and knowing of our work together on health
care, if anything, we have seen during this last couple of weeks of
discussion about the economic stimulus how important it is going to be
to bring the Senate together in the months ahead in a bipartisan way to
tackle these most significant economic questions. You are not going to
fix Social Security and you are not going to fix health care on a
narrowly partisan approach. The Senator has made that clear with the
ideas he has advanced on Social Security.
It is a pleasure to team up with the Senator on health care. I look
forward to joining with him in following up on the Social Security
proposal he has made this afternoon. I thank him for his work.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I again stress how grateful I am to the
Senator for his leadership and how happy I am to be one of his cadre of
loyal followers on this issue.
______
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 429. A bill to ensure the safety of imported food products for the
citizens of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
colleague Senator Grassley, the EAT SAFE Act of 2009. Our bill is an
important piece of foodsafety legislation that brings common sense
solutions to give Americans peace of mind that the foods they eat and
give their families is safe to consume.
We continue to see major problems in our food safety systems. Most
recently, there was both contaminated salsa and a massive peanut butter
recall. Two years ago, there was the major recall of animal feed and
pet food that contained contaminated Chinese gluten. These examples
highlight the need for action to ensure the safety of both domestic and
foreign food products. Ensuring the safety of food products and food
ingredients brought into this country from other nations has taken on a
greater urgency.
[[Page S2240]]
A report issued in September 2007 by the Interagency Working Group on
Import Safety stated that, ``aspects of our present import system must
be strengthened to promote security, safety, and trade for the benefit
of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we are reintroducing
today is designed to address one of those critical aspects of the food
and agricultural import system that, in the face of the mounting
imported food safety crisis, has received little public focus. That
issue is food and other agricultural products that are being smuggled
into the United States.
When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as
something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of
foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in
their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of
smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do
address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products
comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent
U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain
products from a particular country.
The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals
circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times
smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the
identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other
times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the
products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have
previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is,
presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain
importation undetected.
Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in
the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and
poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of
avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a
bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico
contaminated with Hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China
containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and
agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and
animals, and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and
security.
The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying common-
sense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This
legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring
additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also
authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland
Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for
Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women
working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food
and agricultural threats.
In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT
SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The
legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA-
regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified
by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers
who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory
sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection
system.
Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness
of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring
the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely
and easily searchable manner.
These commonsense measures are an important first step towards
safeguarding American's food and agricultural supply and ensuring our
Nation's health, economy, and security. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this 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. 429
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Ending
Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding America's Food for
Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Food safety training, personnel, and coordination.
Sec. 5. Reporting of smuggled food products.
Sec. 6. Civil penalties relating to illegally imported meat and poultry
products.
Sec. 7. Certification of food safety labs.
Sec. 8. Data sharing.
Sec. 9. Public notice regarding recalled food products.
Sec. 10. Foodborne illness education and outreach competitive grants
program.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the safety of the food supply of the United States is
vital to--
(A) the health of the citizens of the United States;
(B) the preservation of the confidence of those citizens in
the food supply of the United States; and
(C) the success of the food sector of the United States
economy;
(2) the United States has the safest food supply in the
world, and maintaining a secure domestic food supply is
imperative for the national security of the United States;
(3) in a report published by the Government Accountability
Office in January 2007, the Comptroller General of the United
States described food safety oversight as 1 of the 29 high-
risk program areas of the Federal Government; and
(4) the task of preserving the safety of the food supply of
the United States is complicated by pressures relating to--
(A) food products that are smuggled or imported into the
United States without being screened, monitored, or inspected
as required by law; and
(B) the need to improve the enforcement of the United
States in reducing the quantity of food products that are--
(i) smuggled into the United States; and
(ii) imported into the United States without being
screened, monitored, or inspected as required by law.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
(3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Agriculture.
(4) Food defense threat.--The term ``food defense threat''
means any intentional contamination, including any disease,
pest, or poisonous agent, that could adversely affect the
safety of human or animal food products.
(5) Smuggled food product.--The term ``smuggled food
product'' means a prohibited human or animal food product
that a person fraudulently brings into the United States.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 4. FOOD SAFETY TRAINING, PERSONNEL, AND COORDINATION.
(a) Department.--
(1) Training programs.--
(A) Agricultural specialists.--
(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training
programs to educate each Federal employee who is employed in
a position described in section 421(g) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231(g)) on issues relating to
food safety and agroterrorism.
(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $1,700,000.
(B) Cross-training of employees of united states customs
and border protection.--
(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training
programs to educate border patrol agents employed by the
United States Customs and Border Protection of the Department
of Homeland Security about identifying human, animal, and
plant health threats and referring the threats to the
appropriate agencies.
(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $4,800,000.
(2) Illegal import detection personnel.--Subtitle G of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 263. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.
``(a) Additional Employees.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats:
Safeguarding America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of
2009, the Secretary shall hire a sufficient number of
employees to increase the number of full-time field
investigators, import surveillance officers, support staff,
analysts, and compliance and enforcement experts employed by
the Food Safety and Inspection Service as of October 1, 2007,
by 100 employees, in order to--
[[Page S2241]]
``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled human food
products from commerce; and
``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that
threaten the food supply.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.''.
(b) Administration.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 418. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding
America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2009, the
Secretary shall hire a sufficient number of employees to
increase the number of full-time field investigators, import
surveillance officers, support staff, analysts, and
compliance and enforcement experts employed by the Food and
Drug Administration as of October 1, 2007, by 150 employees,
in order to--
``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled food products from
commerce; and
``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that
threaten the food supply.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
(c) Coordination of Federal Agencies.--Section 411(b) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 211(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Coordination of federal agencies.--The Commissioner
of United States Customs and Border Protection, in
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall conduct activities to
target, track, and inspect shipments that--
``(A) contain human and animal food products; and
``(B) are imported into the United States.''.
SEC. 5. REPORTING OF SMUGGLED FOOD PRODUCTS.
(a) Department.--
(1) Public notification.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on
which the Department identifies a smuggled food product, the
Secretary shall provide to the public notification describing
the food product identified by the Department and, if
available, the individual or entity that smuggled the food
product.
(B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary shall
provide public notification under subparagraph (A) through--
(i) a news release of the Department for each smuggled food
product identified by the Department;
(ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the
website of the Department;
(iii) the management of a periodically updated list that
contains a description of each individual or entity that
smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A); and
(iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Department
identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary shall
provide to the Department of Homeland Security notification
of the smuggled food product.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Public notification.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on
which the Administration identifies a smuggled food product,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide to
the public notification describing the smuggled food product
identified by the Administration and, if available, the
individual or entity that smuggled the food product.
(B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall provide public notification
under subparagraph (A) through--
(i) a press release of the Administration for each smuggled
food product identified by the Administration;
(ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the
website of the Administration;
(iii) the management of a periodically updated list that
contains a description of each individual or entity that
smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under subparagraph (A); and
(iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Administration
identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall provide to the Department of
Homeland Security notification of the smuggled food product.
SEC. 6. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO ILLEGALLY IMPORTED MEAT
AND POULTRY PRODUCTS.
(a) Meat Products.--Section 20(b) of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 620(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Destruction; Civil Penalties.--
``(1) Destruction.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Civil penalties.--Each individual or entity that
fails to present each meat article that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each meat article that the individual or
entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
(b) Poultry Products.--Section 12 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.
``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain
Sections.--
``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
(2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Failure to present poultry products at designated
inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails
to present each poultry product that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each poultry product that the individual
or entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
(c) Egg Products.--Section 12 of the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1041) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.
``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain
Prohibited Actions.--
``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
(2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Failure to present egg products at designated
inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails
to present each egg product that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each egg product that the individual or
entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
SEC. 7. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF TEST
RESULTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by section
4(b), is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 419. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF
TEST RESULTS.
``(a) Definition of Food Safety Lab.--In this section, the
term `food safety lab' means an establishment that conducts
testing, on behalf of an importer through a contract or other
arrangement, to ensure the safety of articles of food.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--A food safety lab shall submit to the
Secretary an application for certification. Upon review, the
Secretary may grant or deny certification to the food safety
lab.
``(2) Certification standards.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria and methodologies for the evaluation of
applications for certification submitted under paragraph (1).
Such criteria shall include the requirements that a food
safety lab--
``(A) be accredited as being in compliance with standards
set by the International Organization for Standardization;
``(B) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct an
inspection of the facilities of the food safety lab and the
procedures of such lab before making a certification
determination;
``(C) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct routine
audits of the facilities of the food safety lab to ensure
ongoing compliance with accreditation and certification
requirements;
``(D) submit with such application a fee established by the
Secretary in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of
application review, including inspection under subparagraph
(B); and
``(E) agree to submit to the Secretary, in accordance with
the process established under subsection (c), the results of
tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of an
importer.
``(c) Submission of Test Results.--The Secretary shall
establish a process by which a food safety lab certified
under this section shall submit to the Secretary the results
of all tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of
an importer.''.
(b) Enforcement.--Section 303(f) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) An importer (as such term is used in section 419)
shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 if such importer knowingly engages in the
falsification of test results submitted to the Secretary by a
food safety lab certified under section 419.
``(6) A food safety lab certified under section 419 shall
be subject to a civil penalty in
[[Page S2242]]
an amount not to exceed $25,000 for knowingly submitting to
the Secretary false test results under section 419.'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``paragraph (5)(A)''
and inserting ``paragraph (7)(A)'';
(4) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking ``or
(4)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(4), (5), or
(6)'';
(5) in paragraph (8), by striking ``paragraph (5)(A)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (7)(A)''; and
(6) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (6)'' each place it appears and inserting
``paragraph (8)''.
SEC. 8. DATA SHARING.
(a) Department of Agriculture Memoranda of Understanding.--
The Secretary shall ensure that the agencies within the
Department of Agriculture, including the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, enter into a
memorandum of understanding to ensure the timely and
efficient sharing of all information collected by such
agencies related to foodborne pathogens, contaminants, and
illnesses.
(b) Interagency Memorandum of Understanding.--The
Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding between the agencies within the Department of
Agriculture, including those described in subsection (a), and
the agencies within the Department of Health and Human
Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure
the timely and efficient sharing of all information collected
by such agencies related to foodborne pathogens,
contaminants, and illnesses.
SEC. 9. PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING RECALLED FOOD PRODUCTS.
(a) Department.--
(1) News releases regarding recalled food products.--
(A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal
food product regulated by the Department is voluntarily
recalled, the Secretary shall provide to the public a news
release describing the human or animal food product.
(B) Contents.--Each news release described in subparagraph
(A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and
animal food product regulated by the Department that is
voluntarily recalled.
(2) Website.--The Secretary shall modify the website of the
Department to contain--
(A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a
human or animal food product regulated by the Department is
voluntarily recalled, a news release describing the human or
animal food product;
(B) if available, an image of each human and animal food
product that is the subject of a news release described in
subparagraph (A); and
(C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a search engine that--
(i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary;
and
(ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate
each human and animal food product regulated by the
Department that is voluntarily recalled.
(3) State-issued and industry press releases.--To meet the
requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary--
(A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a
State; and
(B) shall not provide to the public a press release issued
by a private industry entity in lieu of a press release
issued by the Federal Government or a State.
(4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary may
not delegate, by contract or otherwise, the duty of the
Secretary--
(A) to provide to the public a news release under paragraph
(1); and
(B) to make any required modification to the website of the
Department under paragraph (2).
(b) Administration.--
(1) Press releases regarding recalled food products.--
(A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal
food product regulated by the Administration is voluntarily
recalled, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
provide to the public a press release describing the human or
animal food product.
(B) Contents.--Each press release described in subparagraph
(A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and
animal food product regulated by the Administration that is
voluntarily recalled.
(2) Website.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall modify the website of the Administration to contain--
(A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a
human or animal food product regulated by the Administration
is voluntarily recalled a press release describing the human
or animal food product;
(B) if available, an image of each human and animal food
product that is the subject of a press release described in
subparagraph (A); and
(C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a search engine that--
(i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services; and
(ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate
each human and animal food product regulated by the
Administration that is voluntarily recalled.
(3) State-issued and industry press releases.--For purposes
of meeting the requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a
State; and
(B) may not provide to the public a press release issued by
a private industry entity in lieu of a press release issued
by a State or the Federal Government.
(4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services may not delegate, by contract or
otherwise, the duty of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--
(A) to provide to the public a press release under
paragraph (1); and
(B) to make any required modification to the website of the
Administration under paragraph (2).
SEC. 10. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH COMPETITIVE
GRANTS PROGRAM.
Title IV of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 is amended by adding after
section 412 (7 U.S.C. 7632) the following:
``SEC. 413. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
``(2) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) the government of a State (including a political
subdivision of a State);
``(B) an educational institution;
``(C) a private for-profit organization;
``(D) a private non-profit organization; and
``(E) any other appropriate individual or entity, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary (acting through the
Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service), in consultation with the
Administrator and the Commissioner, shall establish and
administer a competitive grant program to provide grants to
eligible entities to enable the eligible entities to carry
out educational outreach partnerships and programs to provide
to health providers, patients, and consumers information to
enable those individuals and entities--
``(1) to recognize--
``(A) foodborne illness as a serious public health issue;
and
``(B) each symptom of foodborne illness to ensure the
proper treatment of foodborne illness;
``(2) to understand--
``(A) the potential for contamination of human and animal
food products during each phase of the production of human
and animal food products; and
``(B) the importance of using techniques that help ensure
the safe handling of human and animal food products; and
``(3) to assess the risk of foodborne illness to ensure the
proper selection by consumers of human and animal food
products.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,500,000 for
fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
Mr. GRASLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the EAT SAFE
Act which I am once again cosponsoring with Senator Casey.
It seems like all too often we have a new food safety problem. It
might be contaminated food right here at home, or tainted goods coming
in from other countries.
Now, as everyone in this body knows, I am a family farmer. And I take
pride in the food that I grow on my farm that helps to feed the world.
I have never met a farmer who didn't want to produce safe food.
Many of us in Congress are parents and grandparents. We are always
looking at the foods we buy to stock our shelves because we know it
will impact the health of our loved ones. And so, everyone in this body
should have the same goal in protecting our food supply.
That is why the senator from Pennsylvania and I have seen the
importance of introducing a bipartisan food safety bill.
As part of our national security, we require a safe and secure food
supply. The importers of food into the U.S. have a duty to make sure
what they supply is safe. At the same time, with trillions of dollars
worth of products being imported into the U.S. every year, we need to
make sure that our inspectors can handle the workload.
The EAT SAFE Act puts an emphasis on training and personnel. We
authorize funding for both the Food and Drug Administration and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to hire additional personnel to detect
and track smuggled food and a agricultural products. The bill would
also crosstrain Department of Homeland Security border patrol agents
and agricultural specialists on food safety since they are our first
line of defense to imported threats.
[[Page S2243]]
In addition, our bill requires private laboratories conducting tests
on FDA-regulated products on behalf of importers, to apply for and be
certified by FDA. It directs FDA to develop a determination,
certification, and audit process for these private laboratories, and
authorizes FDA to collect user fees to cover certification costs.
Finally, it imposes civil penalties for laboratories and importers who
knowingly falsify laboratory sampling results and for importers who
circumvent the USDA import reinspection system.
Consumer confidence in America's food supply has always been high.
But as each week passes with a recall on something in our fridges and
pantries, that consumer confidence is slipping.
I believe this bill helps alleviate the threats from imported
products and puts reliability into private lab testing. FDA does not
have the resources as we have seen with the recent peanut products
recall to fully monitor all the threats against our food supply.
I hope the introduction of this bill will get the seeds planted on
what is sure to be a comprehensive look at our Nation's food system. I
urge my colleagues to join Senator Casey and me and support this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 430. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, EDA. EDA works
with partners in economically distressed communities to create wealth
and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to
attract private investment and encourage long-term economic growth.
Authorization of EDA's programs expired on September 30, 2008. I
originally introduced this bill in July 2008 so that we could avert
this lapse in authorization. Unfortunately, my bill was never enacted,
so I am reintroducing it today.
Unlike the majority of the spending in the so-called ``stimulus''
bill passed by the Senate earlier this week, EDA investments actually
provide economic benefits. In fact, studies show that EDA uses federal
dollars efficiently and effectively, creating and retaining long-term
jobs at an average cost that is among the lowest in government. Knowing
that, I was pleased to see some funding for EDA included in that
massive spending bill; I only wish more of that bill had been
legitimate economic stimulus.
Last year, I was disappointed to see an Obama campaign document refer
to EDA as wasteful and ineffective government spending and propose
cutbacks in funding for the agency. While I, too, am committed to
eliminating wasteful spending, I couldn't disagree more with that
characterization of EDA.
In my home State of Oklahoma, for example, EDA has worked long and
hard with many communities in need to bring in private capital
investment and jobs. Durant, Clinton, Oklahoma City, Seminole, Miami
and Elgin are just some of the Oklahoma communities that have made good
use of EDA assistance. In fact, over the past six years, EDA grants
awarded in my home state have resulted in more than 9,000 jobs being
created or saved. With an investment of about $26 million, we have
leveraged another 30 million in State and local dollars and more than
558 million in private sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful
success story.
Particularly in these difficult economic times, we should be doing
all we can to ensure the continuation of such successful programs, and
reauthorization is an important step. I hope now-President Obama
reconsiders the rhetoric of then-candidate Obama and recognizes the
effectiveness and importance of this agency. I look forward to working
with my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as in the House of
Representatives, to reauthorize the programs of the Economic
Development Administration as quickly as possible.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 430
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 ``Economic Development
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.
Section 101 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3131) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(e) Excellence in Economic Development Awards.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--To recognize innovative
economic development strategies of national significance, the
Secretary may establish and carry out a program, to be known
as the `Excellence in Economic Development Award Program'
(referred to in this subsection as the `program').
``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible for recognition
under the program, an entity shall be an eligible recipient
that is not a for-profit organization or institution.
``(3) Nominations.--Before making an award under the
program, the Secretary shall solicit nominations publicly, in
accordance with such selection and evaluation procedures as
the Secretary may establish in the solicitation.
``(4) Categories.--The categories of awards under the
program shall include awards for--
``(A) urban or suburban economic development;
``(B) rural economic development;
``(C) environmental or energy economic development;
``(D) economic diversification strategies that respond to
economic dislocations, including economic dislocations caused
by natural disasters and military base realignment and
closure actions;
``(E) university-led strategies to enhance economic
development;
``(F) community- and faith-based social entrepreneurship;
``(G) historic preservation-led strategies to enhance
economic development; and
``(H) such other categories as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
``(5) Provision of awards.--The Secretary may provide to
each entity selected to receive an award under this
subsection a plaque, bowl, or similar article to commemorate
the accomplishments of the entity.
``(6) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out this
Act, the Secretary may use not more than $2,000 for each
fiscal year to carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF RECIPIENT FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH
PROJECT ASSETS.
(a) Revolving Loan Fund Program Flexibility.--Section
209(d) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Conversion of project assets.--
``(A) Request.--If a recipient determines that a revolving
loan fund established using assistance provided under this
section is no longer needed, or that the recipient could make
better use of the assistance in light of the current economic
development needs of the recipient if the assistance was made
available to carry out any other project that meets the
requirements of this Act, the recipient may submit to the
Secretary a request to approve the conversion of the
assistance.
``(B) Methods of conversion.--A recipient the request to
convert assistance of which is approved under subparagraph
(A) may accomplish the conversion by--
``(i) selling to a third party any assets of the applicable
revolving loan fund; or
``(ii) retaining repayments of principal and interest
amounts on loans provided through the applicable revolving
loan fund.
``(C) Requirements.--
``(i) Sale.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), a recipient
shall use the net proceeds from a sale of assets under
subparagraph (B)(i) to pay any portion of the costs of 1 or
more projects that meet the requirements of this Act.
``(II) Treatment.--For purposes of subclause (I), a project
described in that subclause shall be considered to be
eligible under section 301.
``(ii) Retention of repayments.--Retention by a recipient
of any repayment under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be carried
out in accordance with a strategic reuse plan approved by the
Secretary that provides for the increase of capital over time
until sufficient amounts (including interest earned on the
amounts) are accumulated to fund other projects that meet the
requirements of this Act.
``(D) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require such
terms and conditions regarding a proposed conversion of the
use of assistance under this paragraph as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(E) Expediency requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure
that any assistance intended to be converted for use pursuant
to this paragraph is used in an expeditious manner.
``(6) Program administration.--The Secretary may allocate
not more than 2 percent of the amounts made available for
grants under this section for the development and maintenance
of an automated tracking and monitoring system to ensure the
proper operation and financial integrity of the revolving
loan program established under this section.''.
[[Page S2244]]
(b) Maintenance of Effort.--Title VI of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 613. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
``(a) Expected Period of Best Efforts.--
``(1) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes of this
Act, before providing investment assistance for a
construction project under this Act, the Secretary shall
establish the expected period during which the recipient of
the assistance shall make best efforts to achieve the
economic development objectives of the assistance.
``(2) Treatment of property.--To obtain the best efforts of
a recipient during the period established under paragraph
(1), during that period--
``(A) any property that is acquired or improved, in whole
or in part, using investment assistance under this Act shall
be held in trust by the recipient for the benefit of the
project; and
``(B) the Secretary shall retain an undivided equitable
reversionary interest in the property.
``(3) Termination of federal interest.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning on the date on which the
Secretary determines that a recipient has fulfilled the
obligations of the recipient for the applicable period under
paragraph (1), taking into consideration the economic
conditions existing during that period, the Secretary may
terminate the reversionary interest of the Secretary in any
applicable property under paragraph (2)(B).
``(B) Alternative method of termination.--
``(i) In general.--On a determination by a recipient that
the economic development needs of the recipient have changed
during the period beginning on the date on which investment
assistance for a construction project is provided under this
Act and ending on the expiration of the expected period
established for the project under paragraph (1), the
recipient may submit to the Secretary a request to terminate
the reversionary interest of the Secretary in property of the
project under paragraph (2)(B) before the date described in
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Approval.--The Secretary may approve a request of a
recipient under clause (i) if--
``(I) in any case in which the request is submitted during
the 10-year period beginning on the date on which assistance
is initially provided under this Act for the applicable
project, the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount
equal to 100 percent of the fair market value of the pro rata
Federal share of the project; or
``(II) in any case in which the request is submitted after
the expiration of the 10-year period described in subclause
(I), the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount equal to
the fair market value of the pro rata Federal share of the
project as if that value had been amortized over the period
established under paragraph (1), based on a straight-line
depreciation of the project throughout the estimated useful
life of the project.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may establish
such terms and conditions under this section as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, including by extending the
period of a reversionary interest of the Secretary under
subsection (a)(2)(B) in any case in which the Secretary
determines that the performance of a recipient is
unsatisfactory.
``(c) Previously Extended Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to any recipient to which
the term of provision of assistance was extended under this
Act before the date of enactment of this section, the
Secretary may approve a request of the recipient under
subsection (a) in accordance with the requirements of this
section to ensure uniform administration of this Act,
notwithstanding any estimated useful life period that
otherwise relates to the assistance.
``(2) Conversion of use.--If a recipient described in
paragraph (1) demonstrates to the Secretary that the intended
use of the project for which assistance was provided under
this Act no longer represents the best use of the property
used for the project, the Secretary may approve a request by
the recipient to convert the property to a different use for
the remainder of the term of the Federal interest in the
property, subject to the condition that the new use shall be
consistent with the purposes of this Act.
``(d) Status of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
under this section is in addition to any authority of the
Secretary pursuant to any law or grant agreement in effect on
the date of enactment of this section.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 701(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2004'' and inserting
``2009'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2010'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2011'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''; and
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2013''.
SEC. 5. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
Section 704 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3234) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 704. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), of the
amounts made available under section 701 for each fiscal
year, not less than $27,000,000 shall be made available to
provide grants under section 203.
``(b) Subject to Total Appropriations.--For any fiscal
year, the amount made available pursuant to subsection (a)
shall be increased to--
``(1) $28,000,000, if the total amount made available under
subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater
than $300,000,000;
``(2) $29,500,000, if the total amount made available under
subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater
than $340,000,000;
``(3) $31,000,000, if the total amount made available under
subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater
than $380,000,000;
``(4) $32,500,000, if the total amount made available under
subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater
than $420,000,000; and
``(5) $34,500,000, if the total amount made available under
subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater
than $460,000,000.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 432. A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy
Act of 1992 to honor the legacy of Stewart L. Udall, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator McCain
in introducing a bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Act, both to enhance the
Udall Foundation and to honor one of the foremost environmental
visionaries of American history, Stewart L. Udall.
The Morris K. Udall Foundation was established by Congress in 1992 to
provide federal-funded scholarships to the growing number of students
in America who wish to become environmental professionals in the public
and private sectors and importantly, to identify and educate new
generations of leaders in Indian Country. By now, there are more than
1,100 young Udall Scholars and Udall Native American interns around the
country. The educational programs of the Foundation have earned
national significance and are among the most sought after on American
campuses.
In 1998, Foundation grew to include a new Federal environmental
mediation program created by Congress. Named the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, the agency has played a quiet
leading role to find common ground on issues as diverse as Everglades
Restoration to the joint tribal-federal management of the National
Bison Range Complex. The Institute's small in-house staff, often
working in partnership with members of its national roster of
mediators, have handled important conflict resolution processes in
collaboration with many federal departments including Interior,
Defense, USDA Forest Service, and Transportation. Now more than ever,
these skills are needed to move infrastructure projects and restore the
economy.
The Udall Foundation is also a founder and funder of the Native
Nations Institute, NNI, a graduate educator and policy center for
Indian Country. NNI teaches a new way of governance on the reservations
which embraces tribal identity as a core principle and smart business
practices as a way to assist Indian nations rebuild their economies. In
the last 5 years, more than 2,000 Native American leaders have
benefitted from its courses. New leaders emerging from the Foundation's
education programs are beginning to take their places in Tribal
governance.
The Udall Foundation's Parks in Focus aims to connect underserved
youth to nature through the art of photography. The Foundation
organizes week-long trips, introduces members of local Boys & Girls
Clubs, many of whom have never before left their communities, to some
of the most beautiful natural landscapes in the country; provides them
with Canon digital cameras to use and keep; and teaches the basics of
photography, ecology, and conservation while exploring national parks,
wildlife refuges, and other public lands. The Foundation will be
expanding the Parks in Focus program significantly in the coming years.
[[Page S2245]]
The proposed legislation includes additional resources for operations
of this fine agency as well as renaming it the Morris K. Udall and
Stewart L. Udall Foundation, in recognition of the historic Interior
Secretary's contributions.
Stewart Udall was Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy
and Johnson, where his accomplishments earned him a special place among
those ever to serve in that post and have made him an icon in the
environmental and conservation communities. His best-selling book on
environmental attitudes in the U.S., The Quiet Crisis, 1963, along with
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, is credited with creating a
consciousness in the country leading to the environmental movement.
Stewart's remarkable career in public service has left an indelible
mark on the Nation's environmental and cultural heritage. Born in 1920,
and educated in Saint Johns, Arizona, Udall attended the University of
Arizona for 2 years until World War II. He served 4 years in the Air
Force as an enlisted B24 gunner flying 50 missions over Western Europe
for which he received the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters. He
returned to the University of Arizona in 1946 where he played guard on
a championship basketball team and attended law school. He received his
law degree and was admitted to the Arizona bar in 1948. He married Erma
Lee Webb during this time. They raised 6 children.
Stewart was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona
in 1954. He served with distinction in the House for 3 terms on the
Interior and Education and Labor committees. In 1960, President Kennedy
appointed Stewart Udall Secretary of Interior. In this role, he oversaw
the addition of four parks, 6 national monuments, 8 seashores and
lakeshores, 9 recreation areas, 20 historic sites and 56 wildlife
refuges to the National Park system. During his tenure as the Interior
Secretary, President Johnson signed into law the Wilderness Act, the
Water Quality Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Trails
Bill. Stewart also helped spark a cultural renaissance in America by
setting in motion initiatives that led to the Kennedy Center, Wolf Trap
Farm Park, the National Endowments for Arts and the Humanities, and the
revived Ford's Theatre.
Stewart currently resides in Santa Fe, NM, and will turn 90 years old
in the coming year.
The Udall Foundation is an exemplary organization doing remarkable
work and I am pleased to support additional resources to this agency.
In addition, Stewart displayed significant leadership in helping to
enact much of the legislation that protects our environment and lands
today as well as being one of the first people to point to problems in
the environment. For these and many other reasons, he deserves
inclusion in the Foundation on par with his brother, Morris.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage
of this bill.
______
By Mr. UDALL, of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. Udall, of
Colorado):
S. 433. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 to establish a renewable electricity standard, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce
legislation to establish a Federal renewable electricity standard.
Before I talk about what that will do, let me tell you a little bit
about the people it will help.
Luna County, NM has a double-digit unemployment rate. More than half
of its children live in poverty. It was in recession before our current
economic crisis. If nothing changes, it will be in recession long after
the rest of the country recovers. Now, let me be clear. Luna County
deserves help, but I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. We usually
think of economic development as something you pay for. But the
proposal I am introducing today does not spend a dime. In fact, my plan
will generate tax revenue.
Luna County has something else worth noting. When you look at the
United States on a map that measures solar thermal energy, Luna County
is red hot. Like hundreds of small communities across our country, Luna
has immense untapped potential for renewable energy. If Luna can find a
way to sell its sunlight, its future will be secure. But Luna has a
problem. America's energy markets do not value Luna's sunlight the way
they should. These markets ignore three critical things. First, growing
demand and stagnant supply mean rising prices for fossil fuels. The
price of natural gas has more than tripled since 1995. Unless we act,
we can expect more price spikes in the future, spikes that threaten the
economy. But it is easier for utilities to buy a little more natural
gas than it is to invest in clean technologies. The result is that we
are moving forward as if our energy use is sustainable, when we know it
is not.
In most markets, this would be bad enough, but our energy markets
have two other problems. Americans care whether our energy comes from
farmers in Iowa or mullahs in Iran, but our markets do not. When we buy
solar energy from Luna County, we keep our money in this country, and
we make ourselves less dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran,
countries that have shown their willingness to use our dependence
against us. America's energy markets also ignore global climate change.
Right now a clean electron produced by the sun costs as much as an
electron produced by burning carbon. Our markets don't care whether the
energy we consume is leading to fewer farms and more forest fires. They
don't care whether our grandchildren will be able to live comfortably
on this Earth. They just don't care. And we are paying the price. Even
the most conservative economists will tell us that energy is a classic
case of market failure. The energy market ignores our economic
security, our national security, and the future of our world.
Economists call these things externalities. I call them the basis of
our way of life.
So what do we do? I am proposing that we demand a little bit more
from our utilities. Let's require that they produce 25 percent of their
electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Thanks in large part to
Senator Bingaman, the Senate has already passed a similar proposal
three times. Last year I was proud to help pass a proposal such as this
in the other body.
Renewable electricity standards have succeeded at the State level. In
fact, more than 28 States have renewable standards, including the State
of New Mexico. But a national RES has never become the law of the land.
It is time for Congress to make it so.
There are many reasons to support this plan. To start, it is good for
consumers. Scientists looking at a 20-percent standard concluded that
it could save utility customers $31.8 billion. A 25-percent standard
would save even more. A renewable energy standard would also strengthen
rural communities and provide new income for farmers and ranchers.
This plan will make America safer. The billions of dollars it will
generate are dollars that cannot be used to hold our foreign policy
hostage.
Most importantly, a national renewable standard will create hundreds
of thousands of high-paying jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. Study
after study shows that shifting capital to renewable energy increases
job creation. Not only will this plan stimulate job creation today, it
will put us on a path toward dominance in the industries of the future.
Some of my colleagues will probably say a renewable standard makes
sense for sunny New Mexico, but it won't work for their States. I urge
them to take another look at their States. Scientists predict that
Florida could one day meet one-third of its energy needs by tapping the
power of the gulf stream. Louisiana has wind energy potential offshore,
and New Orleans has already begun to rebuild its economy by creating
jobs developing solar energy. Alaska has wind energy potential all over
its coast and geothermal potential in the south. The State of Tennessee
concluded its existing investment in renewables could yield 4,500 jobs
and additional investment could yield 45,000.
Everywhere we look, America has untapped renewable energy potential.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that Louisiana might have to
import some energy from Florida under a national renewable standard.
Louisiana already
[[Page S2246]]
imports a big chunk of its energy. As consumption rises, more and more
of Louisiana's energy comes from imports. Today those imports come
largely from natural gas, and 43 percent of the world's natural gas is
under Russia and Iran. So Louisiana is bidding up the price of a
commodity that is largely controlled by countries that don't like us. I
would rather buy hydropower from Florida than fossil fuels from Iran.
The choice is not between importing and not importing. It is between
Charlie Crist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not a tough choice.
Of course, some people say they support a renewable standard, but not
yet. They say America cannot afford to reduce our contribution to
climate change because the growth of China and India will drown out the
impact of our emissions reductions. This concern is very real, but it
represents a failure of our moral imagination. If we are to have a
future as a country and as a global community, we cannot see the
world's aspiring middle class as potential threats. We have to see them
as potential customers. And we should be racing to develop the
technologies they will need.
Waiting for China to address its emissions problem before we address
ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start
to lace up.
Right now, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition; America
just does not always admit it. As the world's citizens see the impact
of climate change, we are demanding energy supplies that do not
endanger our collective future. That means soon clean energy will not
be an alternative, it will be the standard. When that happens,
whichever country dominates the clean energy industry will be able to
create jobs on a grand scale.
Do not take my word for it. The CEO of GE Energy has testified before
the Congress that ``wind and solar energy are likely to be among the
largest sources''--largest sources--``of new manufacturing jobs
worldwide during the 21st Century.'' Think about what he said:
[W]ind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest
sources of new manufacturing jobs. . . .
We hear a lot of discussion on this floor about new manufacturing
jobs and us losing manufacturing jobs. Well, this is where the new
manufacturing jobs are going to be.
A growing chorus of economists and business leaders agree with what
this GE Energy CEO has said.
America cannot afford to let another country become the world's clean
energy leader. But right now we are falling behind. Countries that have
done much more to shape their energy markets have already created
thriving green energy industries. With a population roughly one-quarter
as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers
developing wind energy technologies. Spain has almost five times as
many workers in the solar thermal industry as America. China has more
than 300 times as many.
America is not falling behind because our scientists are not smart
enough. Some of the big ideas now powering the economies of Europe
originated right here. From 1970 to 1996, Los Alamos National Lab
developed a technique for cleanly and efficiently using the Earth's
heat to generate electricity. Estimates indicated the technique could
eventually power the Earth for hundreds of years. But without market
incentives to encourage continued development, progress stagnated.
Germany took that technology and brought it to market in just 3 years.
They now have 150 geothermal plants nearing completion. Think of the
jobs that will create. Those could be our jobs. Those should be our
jobs.
A renewable electricity standard would let America catch up and take
the lead. We still have the world's most productive workers. We still
have the most creative entrepreneurs. Our culture encourages individual
initiative to solve tough problems. But if we want to win, we have to
act now.
The American people are ready for this. I have driven to every county
in New Mexico, and everywhere I saw innovation. I saw wind turbines
going up in Little Texas. I saw the spot in Deming, NM, where the
world's largest solar plant will sit. At Mesalands Community College in
Tucumcari, NM, I saw a classroom in a wind turbine hundreds of feet
over the desert. Even Luna County is starting to develop its resources.
They just need help.
The Federal Government is late to the party. We should be leading the
clean energy revolution. Instead, our constituents are leaving us in
the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to
create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that
values our economic security, our national security, our environmental
security.
Mr. President, it is time for us to lead.
Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about
renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this
issue for years. As I said earlier, he has passed a renewable standard
in the Senate three times. I introduced this legislation today because
I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to
working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity
standard signed into law.
I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another
Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the
senior Senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body
together. And much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable
electricity standard. We were both attracted to his proposal because it
reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New
Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to
thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his
support through the years.
Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private
sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that
supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic
security, our national security, our environmental security.
Is time for us to lead.
Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about
renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this
issue for years. I introduce this legislation today because I want to
help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with
him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed
into law.
I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another
Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the
senior senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body
together, and much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable
electricity standard. We were both attracted to this proposal because
it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and
New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want
to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his
support through the years.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution supporting a base Defense Budget
that at the very minimum matches 4 percent of gross domestic product;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing today a joint resolution,
S.J. Res. 10, with Congressman Trent Franks introducing the identical
joint resolution in the House, which sets a minimum baseline for
defense spending.
By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4 percent, this
country can achieve two critical needs--national security and economic
growth.
For the past few weeks, this Congress has been debating an economic
stimulus plan. Defense spending, along with infrastructure spending and
tax cuts, has a greater stimulative impact on the economy than some of
the provisions in there. In fact, I had amendments, which I will
describe in a minute, that would have increased the percentage in this
huge bill, so that you would have maybe up to 10 percent for
transportation infrastructure and then defense--I will explain that in
more detail later.
Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to
meet current and future needs. In order to provide this stability,
Congress needs to guarantee a not less than baseline in defense
funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained multiyear program
investments. Guaranteeing a
[[Page S2247]]
baseline budget, not including supplemental, that sets the floor based
on our GDP is the best way to accomplish this.
At this point, I acknowledge that I had an experience back during the
first hearing we had for the confirmation of then-Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld. I asked the question at that time: We have serious problems.
We don't know what our future needs are going to be. We may think we
know what they are going to be today--and we have a lot of smart
generals who will tell us, but they are going to be wrong. I remember
at that time I said that in 1994 someone testified and said in 10 years
we would no longer need to have a ground force, that everything would
be done from the air in a precision, clean way. That would be awfully
nice, but that is not the way it happened. I said, recognizing that we
need to have the best of everything, what would be your recommendation?
He said that he made a study of this--it was not his, but he said that
if you will go back and study it over the last 100 years, the average
amount of defense spending has been 5.7 percent of GDP. That was all
during the 20th century, for 100 years.
Now, we went down at the end of the 1990 to as low as 2.9 percent,
and now we are at 3.6 percent. The problem is the predictability. It is
not there. We don't know in these systems what we can rely on. We know
the cost of closing down a manufacturing line, but we don't have the
predictability we need.
There are some who think by cutting unnecessary weapons systems along
with reforming DOD's procurement process, we can reduce defense
spending and still maintain a military level that could defend our
Nation and reach the minimum expectations of the American people. The
problem with that is that it doesn't happen that way. Yes, we need
acquisition reform, I agree. But the overall budget outlays and the
problems we have--this alone will not rebuild our military.
We could eliminate weapons systems that are called low-hanging fruit.
That has already been done several years ago. I think we all remember--
and some would rather forget--that after the Cold War, there were so
many in this Chamber who said we were in a position then where we did
not need the military because the Cold War was over. We talked about
all kinds of schemes that would transfer previous military spending
into current spending for social programs. This is the way people were
thinking at that time, that the Cold War is over. They had this
euphoric attitude that we didn't need to continue a strong defense.
We have been trying to get past a bow wave created in the 1990s. As a
result, the amount of defense spending actually appropriated during
that 8 years, the 1990s, was $412 billion above the budget request. In
other words, the budget request was $412 billion below what was
sustained at the beginning of that 8-year period. This is what we are
paying for now. Little did we know at that time that 9/11 would come,
and that while we are trying to rebuild our military in terms of
modernization, force strength, we would be attacked and have to start
defending America and prosecuting a war.
I believe we should spend only as much as we need to ensure our
national defense--no more, no less. This joint resolution sets a
minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum
defense budget of 4 percent, this country can achieve two critical
needs--national security and economic health.
First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next
generation of weapons and equipment. This is something we have been
concerned about--weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain
our national security over the next 40 years or more. The age of the
last KC-135R, when it retires, will be 70 years old, and the B-52 will
be even older than that. We are still doing this. We need this
contribution for more heavy equipment. Right now, we have gotten into a
problem of not developing them. They say the old KC-135R--we have a few
more years on that. If we started today on a new lift vehicle to
replace that, it would be several years before we would be able to have
these replaced.
The second thing is it will create and maintain jobs across America
and sustain our military industrial base. Investing in our Nation's
defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides
for our national security at the same time. Experts estimate that each
$1 billion in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs.
Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the United
States with our aerospace industry alone employing 655,000 workers
spread across 44 States. The U.S. shipbuilding industry supports more
than 400,000 workers in 47 States.
Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the
Department of Defense and the services to plan for and fund acquisition
programs based on a minimum known budget through what we call our FYDP
program.
We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition
programs in 3 to 5 years. The KC-X will take over 30 years to complete
once its contract is awarded. We will still be flying these up until
that time.
Programming from a known minimum budget for the outyears will
translate to less programming and more stability for thousands of
businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.
This week, I voted against this massive Government spending bill that
provided plenty in the way of more wasteful Government spending and
little in the way of stimulative opportunities such as defense
spending.
I offered two amendments. One would have increased defense spending,
and without changing the top line of the bill that was before us, it
would change within it to have more defense spending and provide jobs.
At the same time, in this entire $900 billion--or whatever it ends up
being--bill that we are prepared to vote on out of conference, only $27
billion was in roads, bridges, and the things that Americans know we
need.
If we had that along with the additional amount or percentage that
would go to defense spending, it would equate to an increase of an
additional 4 million jobs. This is what we have heard President Obama
talking about for quite some time. That is one way to do it. At the
same time, we have something that is lasting.
We--and certainly the Chair knows this because she sits on the same
committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we are going to
be doing a reauthorization of the highway bill. There is more we could
have done in this particular bill that is totally inadequate in terms
of putting people to work. The amendments we offered were defeated.
Today Congressman Trent Franks and I are simultaneously offering a
joint resolution to keep this country safe, restore our military to the
level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand,
and provide for sustainable jobs in almost every State in the country.
By voting for this joint resolution, we send a clear signal to our
military, to our allies, to our enemies--all alike--that we are
committed to the security of this Nation and that we will not have to
go through something like we went through during the nineties.
One of the great heroes of our time is GEN John Jumper. Before he was
Chief of the Air Force, he stood in 1998 and made a very courageous
statement. He said now the Russians are cranking out through their SU-
30s, SU-35s, a strike vehicle better than anything we have in this
country. The best ones at that time were the F-15 and F-16. Had it not
been for his statement as a wakeup call to the American people, China,
that bought a bunch of SU vehicles from Russia would have better
vehicles than we were sending up with our fliers in potential combat.
All of a sudden, we were able to turn around and start programs such as
the F-22 and F-35 so we could be No. 1.
The American people assume all the time we are No. 1, and obviously
we are not. When the American people find out the best artillery piece
we have right now, which is called Paladin--it is World War II
technology. You have to get out and swab the breach after every shot.
It is outrageous. Prospective enemies in the field would have better
equipment than we would have.
The best way to do this and ensure this in the future is to have a
baseline. I am hoping we will get the support of enough Senators to get
this passed in both the House and the Senate since it is a joint
resolution.
Lastly, let me address some of the points that were said by the
Senator
[[Page S2248]]
from Florida. I agree with all his comments. He is a little nicer about
it than I am, I guess. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is
supposed to be a stimulus bill, not a spending bill. But it is a
spending bill.
We had people analyze what in this bill will stimulat the economy.
There are two things that can do it: the right types of tax relief. We
know this is true. We remember what happened during President Kennedy's
term and the recommendation he made when he said we have to have more
revenues to run our Great Society programs. The best way to increase
revenue is decrease marginal rates. He decreased marginal rates.
Between the years 1961 and 1968, our revenues increased by 62 percent.
Unbelievable.
In the year 1980, the total amount of money that came from marginal
rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled
in the decade when we had the greatest reductions in capital gains
rates, in marginal rates, inheritance tax rates.
There are only two very minor items in this bill that address the tax
situation. One has to do with accelerated depreciation. Another is with
loss carryback, increasing it from 2 years to 5 years, I believe it is.
If you add that together in terms of the cost that is in the bill, this
$900 billion bill we are going to be passing, we have to keep in mind
that is a very small part. It amounts to about 3\1/3\ percent. The
other way you can stimulate is to increase jobs.
I mentioned we had an amendment to increase jobs. It is outrageous
that there is only $27 billion worth of highway construction, road
construction, and bridge construction that we desperately need in this
country in this bill.
We have right now $64 billion worth of shovel-ready jobs that we
could actually produce in this country, and all we have is 3\1/3\
percent of the entire amount of $900 billion going to that type of
program. That is where I come up with the conclusion that this bill is
7 percent stimulus and 93 percent spending.
I have to tell you, back when the first $700 billion program came
along in October, yes, that came from our administration, a Republican
administration, a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. But also the
Democrats were all very enthusiastically behind it. I opposed it at
that time and said there are two problems with it. No. 1, this amount
of money, $700 billion, is more money, it is the largest expenditure,
largest authorization in the history of the world, and we are giving
it, No. 2, to a guy with no guidelines, without any kind of oversight.
We have seen now that has not worked. Now we have the second half of
that, and we find out yesterday the current Secretary of the Treasury
is going to use it any way he wants. Again, no oversight. This was a
horrible mistake. That was the $700 billion last October.
Now we are faced with something far greater than that. I know it is
going to go through. It is a Democratic bill. It is not a bipartisan
bill. It is not a compromise. It is a Democratic bill. They took the
House bill and the Senate bill and something will come from that.
Whether it is closer to the House bill or the Senate bill, it does not
matter. It is going to be close to $900 billion, something we should
not have had.
We are thinking in new terms now. I used to say back during the $700
billion, if you take the total number of families in America who are
filing tax returns and do your math, it comes to $5,000 a family. That
was bad enough. This bill comes to $17,400 a family over a 10-year
period. That is what we have to start thinking about.
I am hoping the American people will look at this bill and realize
this gigantic spending bill follows a philosophy that you can spend
your way out of a recession. It has never happened before. It is not
going to happen with this bill.
We want to do the very best we can. I know President Obama did not
want to go as far this way. I think the House and the Senate have
steered this into a bigger spending bill than he would have liked. I
think he would have liked more stimulants in this bill.
Let's do the best we can with it and then let's get busy and try the
things we know have worked in the past and will work in the future.
____________________