[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 34 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2559-S2573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 485. A bill to reauthorize the Select Agent Program by amending 
the Public Health Service Act and the Agriculture Bioterrorism 
Protection Act of 2002 and to improve oversight of high containment 
laboratories; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 485, the 
Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2009. Today, I 
reintroduced this important legislation with my friend Senator Ted 
Kennedy. We first introduced this bill in June 2008. I thank my 
colleague from Massachusetts for his partnership. I enjoyed working 
closely with him in the 109th Congress on the Pandemic and All-Hazards 
Preparedness Act, which was signed into law in December 2006. He 
continues to be one of the great leaders in the United States Senate, 
and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our laws 
protect the American people from health threats of all kinds.
  This bill will enhance our nation's biosecurity and improve the 
biosafety of our most secure laboratories. We must do everything we can 
to make sure that biological agents and toxins that could present a 
serious threat to public health are kept safe and secure in containment 
laboratories and out of the hands of terrorists.
  In December 2008; 6 months after we introduced this legislation for 
the first time, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD 
Proliferation and Terrorism reported it is ``more likely than not'' 
that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack by 
the end of 2013. The Commission's report, World at Risk, found that 
terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a 
nuclear weapon and, therefore, the U.S. government should make 
bioterrorism a higher priority. According to the report, ``Only by 
elevating the priority of the biological weapons threat will it be 
possible to bring about substantial improvements in global 
biosecurity.'' Many of the specific recommendations contained in that 
report are reflected in this legislation.
  S. 485 achieves two overarching goals. First, it reauthorizes and 
improves the Select Agent Program. This program was created in the 
1990s to control the transfer of certain dangerous biological agents 
and toxins that could be used for bioterrorism. The program expanded 
after the anthrax attacks in 2001; however, the authorization expired 
at the end of September 2007.
  Second, the bill evaluates and enhances the safety and oversight of 
high containment laboratories. These laboratories are used by 
scientists to study select agents and other infectious materials. Labs 
are categorized

[[Page S2560]]

by their safety level. There are four levels, termed Biosafety Level--
BSL--1 through 4, with 4 being the highest level. The number of these 
labs has grown, both domestically and internationally, in the last 
several years.
  The Select Agent Program is jointly administered by the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services HHS Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention--CDC--and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's--USDA--
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS. The program was 
intended to prevent terrorism, and protect public and animal health and 
safety, while not hampering important life-saving research. This is an 
obvious struggle that requires careful consideration, particularly when 
science is rapidly advancing around the globe.
  Under the USA PATRIOT Act, it is illegal to possess ``select agents'' 
for reasons other than legitimate research. The Public Health Security 
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 further required 
laboratories and laboratory personnel to undergo background checks by 
the FBI prior to approval for possession of select agents. As of 
February 2009, there are 82 select agents, meaning the agents pose a 
severe threat to public or animal health and safety. Thirteen of these 
agents are found naturally in the United States. There are 336 entities 
and 10,463 individuals registered with the CDC to work with select 
agents and toxins, and 64 entities and 4,149 individuals registered 
with APHIS.
  We take four key actions in S. 485 to strengthen the Select Agent 
Program.
  First, our legislation reauthorizes the program through 2014 and 
calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The review, to be 
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, will look at the effects 
of the program on international scientific collaboration and domestic 
scientific advances. This is timely because the WMD Commission recently 
suggested the need for an interagency review of the Select Agent 
Program and its impact on biological security and legitimate scientific 
research. Historically, the United States has been an international 
leader in biosecurity. In fact, last year Canada proposed legislation 
to tighten safety and access to pathogens and toxins of concern for 
bioterrorism. Canada's legislation, which was reintroduced earlier this 
month, would establish a mandatory licensing system to track human 
pathogens, similar to our Select Agent Program. It also ensures 
compliance with the country's Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines across 
the country.
  Second, the bill ensures a comprehensive list of select agents. 
Currently, CDC and APHIS develop a list of agents and toxins to which 
the program regulations apply. However, we believe some additional 
factors should be considered in revising the list. For example, 
scientific developments now make it possible to create agents from 
scratch or to modify them and make them more deadly. Highly infectious 
viruses or bacteria that are otherwise difficult to obtain can now be 
created by scientists using ``synthetic genomics.'' In addition, we now 
have more information from the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--
about the threat posed by certain bioterrorism agents.
  In 2002, U.S. researchers assembled the first synthetic virus using 
the genome sequence for polio. Later, in 2005 scientists reconstructed 
the 1918 Pandemic Influenza virus. Then in January 2008, ``safe'' form 
of Ebola was created synthetically. While this ``safe'' Ebola can be 
used for legitimate research to develop drugs and vaccines to protect 
against it, a scientist could also change it back to its lethal form. 
Also, earlier this year, advancements in technology yielded the first 
synthetic bacterial genome.
  We must consider these scientific advances, including genetically 
modified organisms and agents created synthetically, if we are to 
address all agents of concern. In addition, DHS's recent bioterrorism 
risk assessments provide new information for our assessment of 
biological threats. This information should also be considered when 
determining which agents and toxins should be regulated.
  Next, the bill encourages sharing information with state officials to 
enable more effective emergency state planning. State health officials 
are currently not made aware of which agents are being studied within 
their state. This leaves medical responders, public health personnel, 
and animal health officials unprepared for a potential release, whether 
accidental or intentional.
  Lastly, S. 485 clarifies the statutory definition of smallpox. The 
Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 criminalized the use 
of variola virus, the agent that causes smallpox. The statutory 
definition of the virus includes agents that are 85 percent identical 
to the causative strain. Researchers are worried this could be 
interpreted to also include the safer strain used to develop the 
smallpox vaccine, as well as less harmful naturally occurring viruses. 
This sort of ambiguity could be detrimental to necessary medical 
countermeasure research and development. Our bill requires the Attorney 
General to issue guidance clarifying the interpretation of this 
definition.
  In addition, in this legislation we take three key actions to 
evaluate and enhance the safety and oversight of high containment 
laboratories.
  First, our bill evaluates existing oversight of BSL 3 and 4, or high 
containment, labs. The bill requires an assessment of whether current 
guidance on infrastructure, commissioning, operation, and maintenance 
of these labs is adequate. As I mentioned, the number of these labs is 
increasing around the globe. As these new facilities age, we need to 
make sure they are appropriately maintained. It is essential that 
laboratory workers and the public can be assured that these facilities 
are as safe as possible. If the guidance we currently have in place is 
not adequate, then we need to know how to improve it. In addition, the 
recent report by the WMD Commission called for HHS and DHS to lead an 
interagency effort to tighten government oversight of high-containment 
labs.
  Second, the bill improves training for laboratory workers. The WMD 
Commission report also called for standard biosafety and biosecurity 
training for all personnel who work in high-containment labs and 
funding the development of such educational materials. As the number of 
laboratories and personnel increases, we must ensure workers are 
appropriately trained. Accidents and injuries in the lab, such as 
chemical burns and flask explosions, may result from improper use of 
equipment. Our bill develops a set of minimum standards for training 
laboratory personnel in biosafety and biosecurity, and encourages HHS 
and USDA to disseminate these training standards for voluntary use in 
other countries.
  Finally, the bill establishes a voluntary Biological Laboratory 
Incident Reporting System. This system will encourage personnel to 
report biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and thereby allow 
us to learn from one another. Similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting 
System, which gathers information on aviation accidents, this system 
will help identify trends in biosafety and biosecurity incidents of 
concern and develop new protocols for safety and security improvements. 
Lab exposures to pathogens not on the select agent list will also be 
captured through this type of voluntary reporting system. The WMD 
Commission recommended promoting a culture of security awareness in the 
life sciences community and establishing whistleblower mechanisms 
within the life sciences community so that scientists can report their 
concerns about safety and security without risk of retaliation. We 
believe such a reporting system would help fulfill this recommendation.
  In closing, I encourage my Senate colleagues to join Senator Kennedy 
and me as we work to improve our nation's biosecurity and biosafety 
systems by passing S. 485, the Select Agent and Biosafety Improvement 
Act of 2009. I want to thank the many researchers, scientists, and 
state health officials from across the country who shared with me and 
my staff their ideas, experiences, and recommendations. In this time of 
exciting scientific advances, we must ensure our laws and prevention 
programs are updated to reflect current conditions. In addition, we 
must remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the American people from 
bioterrorism. The Select Agent Program is an important part of ensuring 
the nation's safety and security, and I

[[Page S2561]]

look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and improve 
the program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burris, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 486. A bill to achieve access to comprehensive primary health care 
services for all Americans and to reform the organization of primary 
care delivery through an expansion of the Community Health Center and 
National Health Service Corps programs; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I think everybody recognizes that our 
current health care system is in very serious crisis. We have 46 
million Americans who lack any health insurance. We have even more than 
that who are underinsured. The cost of health care is soaring. And we 
end up spending twice as much per person on health care as do the 
people of any other nation, despite having so many people uninsured and 
underinsured.
  While a lot of the discussion regarding the health care crisis 
focuses on insurance coverage, there is another crisis equally severe 
that we do not talk enough about; that is, the crisis in access to 
doctors and dentists--in fact, the crisis in terms of primary health 
care.
  The truth is that in our country today, we have some 56 million 
Americans, including Americans who have health insurance, who simply 
cannot find a doctor and, even more, cannot find a nurse. The absurdity 
of that is that when somebody cannot find a doctor, that person will 
end up going to the emergency room at great cost to our Nation or, 
equally likely, that person may not go to the doctor at all, gets sick, 
and ends up in the hospital, and we are spending tens of thousands of 
dollars treating that person when we could have spent far less if that 
man, woman, or child had access to a doctor when the illness first 
developed.
  I am very gratified, and I thank President Obama, I thank Senator 
Inouye and Senator Harkin, Congressman Obey, the Democratic leadership 
in the House for taking this Nation a giant step forward in terms of 
addressing the crisis in primary health care in the stimulus package.
  What happened in the stimulus package is that $2 billion was 
allocated for community health centers, to help those community health 
centers expand, to help in the growth of new community health centers. 
On top of that, another $300 million was appropriated for the National 
Health Service Corps. The National Health Service Corps is one of the 
important health programs we have in this country because it provides 
debt forgiveness and scholarships for young physicians so they can go 
out and serve in underserved areas.
  Many medical school graduates are leaving school $100,000, $150,000 
in debt, and they have no choice but to end up becoming specialists, 
making a whole lot of money in order to pay back those debts. What we 
have done in the stimulus package is almost triple the amount of money 
going into the National Health Service Corps, which means that we are 
going to be able to enable thousands of young physicians and dentists 
to go out and work in underserved areas, which is a huge step forward 
for primary health care. That was a very important part of the stimulus 
package.
  In fact, on top of all of that, this sum of money is going to create 
44,000 sustainable jobs as we create a primary health care 
infrastructure and as we provide health care to an additional 4 million 
Americans.
  As significant as what we did in the stimulus package is, it is only 
a downpayment for what we have to do to address the crisis in terms of 
primary health care. Therefore, I am very proud to announce that today 
I introduced, along with 21 of my Senate colleagues--and they are in 
alphabetical order--Senators Begich, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Burris, 
Cardin, Casey, Durbin, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Johnson, Leahy, 
Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Schumer, Stabenow, Tester, and Wyden--all 
of those Senators join with me in new legislation which, in fact, is 
going to revolutionize primary health care in America.
  Also today, the majority whip in the House, Jim Clyburn of South 
Carolina, introduced a similar bill which I believe has 78 cosponsors. 
That legislation is called the Access for All America Act. Its goal is 
to significantly expand community health centers all over this country, 
as well as the National Health Service Corps.
  The community health center concept was developed by Senator Ted 
Kennedy over 40 years ago. The truth is that the concept of community 
health centers has been long supported in a bipartisan manner. 
President Bush was supportive of the concept. Senator McCain certainly 
mentioned it in his campaign for President, and Senator Hatch--many 
Republicans have supported it, as well as many people on our side of 
the aisle.
  The reason for that bipartisan support is that everybody here 
understands that community health centers provide quality health care 
in a cost-effective manner. What community health centers do is provide 
comprehensive health care in terms of access to doctors and dentists. I 
point out that there is a major dental crisis all over this country. 
Community health centers by law have to provide mental health 
counseling. On top of that, community health centers provide the lowest 
cost of prescription drugs in the United States of America.
  Today, there are approximately 1,100 community health centers all 
over America. In my State of Vermont, we have gone from 2 to 7 in the 
last 5 years, and they are now providing health care to over 80,000 
Vermonters.
  We have 1,100 in this country today. What this legislation will do is 
go from 1,100 community health centers to 4,800 community health 
centers, quadrupling the number of health centers in America. By doing 
that, we will provide comprehensive, high-quality primary health care 
in every underserved area in this country--a giant step forward in 
terms of making primary health care accessible to every man, woman, and 
child in this Nation.
  In my view, we need to move toward a national health care program 
which guarantees health care for all people, but we can take this 
important step forward in terms of primary health care quite soon.
  Here is one of the very wonderful aspects of what this legislation 
does. Right now, we spend about $2.1 billion a year for community 
health centers. This legislation, over a 5-year period, will take that 
number up to $8 billion. It will go from $2 billion to $8 billion as we 
quadruple the number of community health centers.

  What study after study suggests is that in fact this investment will 
end up saving us money. This investment in primary health care will 
save us money because those people who get sick will now be able to go 
to a community health center--perhaps the most cost-effective primary 
health care in America--rather than walking into an emergency room, 
which is one of the most expensive health care providers in the 
country. In addition, when people have access to health care and get 
treatment when they need it, they are not going to get very sick and 
end up in a hospital, where it will cost tens of thousands of dollars 
to deal with their illness.
  So what this legislation does is quadruple the number of community 
health centers, and it very substantially increases the amount of money 
that goes to the National Health Service Corps so we can provide debt 
relief and scholarships to young physicians who will then go out and 
serve us in underserved areas.
  In my view, this legislation, if passed--and I think we have a good 
chance to pass it because there is a whole lot of bipartisan support 
here in the Senate for this concept, a lot of support in the House as 
well--will revolutionize primary health care in America. It will bring 
us to the day when virtually every American will have access to a 
doctor, a dentist, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription 
drugs. It will enable us to produce the doctors, the dentists, the 
nurses, and the other health care providers we desperately need to get 
out

[[Page S2562]]

into rural, urban America, and underserved areas. It will be a major 
step forward in providing the primary health care infrastructure we 
need as we in fact move to a national health care program.
  This is important legislation, and I thank all of the 21 Members of 
the Senate who have already come on as original cosponsors. We hope 
that many more will come on in the coming weeks and months. My hope is 
we can get this bill out of committee and see it passed as a stand-
alone piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 487. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
human embryonic stem cell research; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber 
about the promise of stem cell research. For more than a decade, ever 
since scientists first succeeded in deriving human embryonic stem 
cells, I have done my utmost to promote this exciting field, which 
offers so much hope for so many people.
  President Obama has promised to lift the restrictions on embryonic 
stem cell research that were put in place by President Bush, and I hope 
and expect that he will do so soon. But we have to make sure that the 
freedom to pursue this research is also protected by Federal law, not 
merely by an executive order that can be reversed during a future 
administration.
  That is why Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Kennedy, 
Hatch, and Feinstein, are introducing the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2009. This is the exact same bipartisan bill that 
both houses of Congress approved in 2007, but was vetoed by President 
Bush. I urge Congress to pass this law again, and for President Obama 
to sign it, so our scientists can move forward with this research 
posthaste, without fear of further political interference.
  Let me spend just a moment reviewing what this bill will accomplish. 
More than 7 years ago, the President announced that federally funded 
scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the 
cells had been derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m.
  I never understood that. Why 9 p.m.? Why not 9:30? If stem cell 
research is morally acceptable at 8:59 p.m., why isn't it OK at 9:01? 
It's totally arbitrary.
  When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell 
lines were eligible for federally funded research. But, today, only 21 
of those 78 lines are eligible--not nearly enough to reflect the 
genetic diversity of this Nation. Many of those 21 lines are showing 
their age, and all were grown with mouse feeder cells, an outdated 
method that raises concerns about contamination.
  Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since 
the President's arbitrary deadline. Many of those lines are 
uncontaminated and healthy. But they're totally off-limits to federally 
funded scientists.
  That is a shame. If we are serious about realizing the promise of 
stem cell research--about helping people with Parkinson's, cancer, 
juvenile diabetes, and so many other diseases--our scientists need 
access to the best stem cell lines available. We need a stem cell 
policy that offers credible, meaningful hope. And that's what this bill 
would provide.
  Under this bill, Federally funded researchers could study any stem 
cell line, regardless of the date that it was derived, as long as 
strict ethical guidelines are met.
  Most importantly, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for 
federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was 
otherwise going to be discarded.
  There are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States that are 
left over from fertility treatments and are currently sitting frozen in 
storage. Most of those embryos will eventually be thrown away. All we 
are saying is, instead of discarding all 400,000 of those leftover 
embryos, let's allow couples to donate a few of them, if they wish, to 
create stem cell lines that could cure diseases and save lives.
  Mr. President, it is time to lift the restrictions that have 
handcuffed stem cell research for more than 7 years. I urge the Senate 
to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President for 
his signature.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 487

       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 ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

     ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary 
     shall conduct and support research that utilizes human 
     embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section 
     (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived 
     from a human embryo).
       ``(b) Ethical Requirements.--Human embryonic stem cells 
     shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or 
     supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that 
     have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were 
     created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in 
     excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such 
     treatment.
       ``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and 
     through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility 
     treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be 
     implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
       ``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated 
     the embryos with written informed consent and without 
     receiving any financial or other inducements to make the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress a report describing the activities carried out under 
     this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including 
     a description of whether and to what extent research under 
     subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.), as amended by section 2, is further 
     amended by inserting after section 498D the following:

     ``SEC. 498E. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL 
                   RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the 
     Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied 
     research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, 
     production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic 
     stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the 
     cell types of the developing body and may result in improved 
     understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse 
     health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
       ``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final 
     guidelines to implement subsection (a), that--
       ``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required 
     for additional research, which shall include a determination 
     of the extent to which specific techniques may require 
     additional basic or animal research to ensure that any 
     research involving human cells using these techniques would 
     clearly be consistent with the standards established under 
     this section;
       ``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for 
     near-term clinical benefit; and
       ``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account 
     techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics 
     and any other appropriate techniques and research.
       ``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of 
     each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing 
     the activities carried out under this section during the 
     fiscal year, including a description of the research 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation 
     regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by 
     somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not 
     specifically authorized by this section.
       ``(e) Definition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo' 
     shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable 
     appropriations Act.

[[Page S2563]]

       ``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to 
     the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or 
     supported under this section, the Act making appropriations 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services for such 
     fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does 
     not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act 
     for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the 
     applicable appropriations Act.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2012, to carry out this section.''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce--the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act similar to legislation that I have sponsored 
in the last two Congresses with Senators Harkin, Hatch, Kennedy, 
Feinstein, and Smith.
  I believe medical research should be pursued with all possible haste 
to cure the diseases and maladies affecting Americans. In my capacity 
as ranking member and at times chairman of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have backed up 
this belief by supporting increases in funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. I have said many times that the NIH is the crown 
jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the only jewel of the Federal 
Government. When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled 
$3.6 billion. In fiscal year 2009, NIH will receive approximately $29 
billion to fund its pursuit of lifesaving research. The successes 
realized by this investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary advances 
in our knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's 
disease, Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis, 
heart disease, ALS, and many others. It is clear to me that Congress's 
commitment to the NIH is paying off. This is the time to seize the 
scientific opportunities that lie before us and to ensure that all 
avenues of research toward cures--including stem cell research--are 
open for investigation.
  I first learned of the potential of human embryonic stem cells in 
November of 1998 upon the announcement of the work by Dr. Jamie Thomson 
at the University of Wisconsin and Dr. John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins 
University. I took an immediate interest and held the first 
congressional hearing on the subject of stem cells on December 2, 1998. 
These cells have the ability to become any type of cell in the human 
body. Another way of saying this is that the cells are pluripotent. The 
consequences of this unique his legislation is property of stem cells 
are far reaching and are key to their potential use in therapies. 
Scientists and doctors with whom I have spoken--and that have since 
testified before the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee at 20 stem 
cell-related hearings--were excited by this discovery. They believed 
that these cells could be used to replace damaged or malfunctioning 
cells in patients with a wide range of diseases. This could lead to 
cures and treatments for maladies such as juvenile diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular diseases, and 
spinal cord injury. In all, well over 100 million Americans could 
benefit from stem cell research.
  Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that would otherwise 
have been discarded. During the course of in vitro fertilization, IVF, 
therapies, sperm, and several eggs are combined in a laboratory to 
create 4 to 16 embryos for a couple having difficulty becoming 
pregnant. The embryos grow in an incubator for 5 to 7 days until they 
contain approximately 100 cells. To maximize the chances of success, 
several embryos are implanted into the woman. The remaining embryos are 
frozen for future use. If the woman becomes pregnant after the first 
implantation, and does not want to have more pregnancies, the remaining 
frozen embryos are in excess of clinical need and can be donated for 
research. Embryonic stem cells are derived from these embryos. The stem 
cells form what are called ``lines'' and continue to divide 
indefinitely in a laboratory dish. In this way, the 21 lines currently 
available for Federal researchers were obtained from 21 embryos. The 
stem cells contained in these lines can then be made into almost any 
type of cell in the body--with the potential to replace cells damaged 
by disease or accident. At no point in the derivation process are the 
embryos or the derived cells implanted in a woman, which would be 
required for them to develop further. The process of deriving stem cell 
lines results in the disruption of the embryo and I know that this 
raises some concerns.
  During the course of our hearings in this subject, we have learned 
that over 400,000 embryos are stored in fertility clinics around the 
country. If these frozen embryos were going to be used for in vitro 
fertilization, I would be the first to support it. In fact, I have 
included $2,000,000 in the HHS budget each year since 2002 to create 
and continue an embryo adoption awareness campaign. But the truth is 
that most of these embryos will be discarded. I believe that instead of 
just throwing these embryos away, they hold the key to curing and 
treating diseases that cause suffering for millions of people.
  President Bush opened the door to stem cell research on August 9, 
2001. His policy statement allowed limited Federal funding of human 
embryonic stem cell research for the first time. There is a real 
question as to whether the door is open sufficiently.
  A key statement by the President related to the existence of 
approximately 60 eligible stem cell lines--then expanded to 78. In the 
intervening 5 years, it has become apparent that many of the lines 
cited are not really viable, robust, or available to federally funded 
researchers. The fact is there are only 21 lines now available for 
research. Perhaps, most fundamental is the issue of therapy. It was not 
addressed in the President's statement, but it came to light in the 
first weeks after the President's announcement that all of the stem 
cell lines have had nutrients from mouse feeder cells and bovine serum. 
Under FDA regulations, these lines will face intense regulatory hurdles 
before being useful in human therapies. In the intervening years, new 
technology has been developed so that mouse feeder cells are no longer 
necessary for the growth of stem cells. It only makes sense that our 
Nation's scientists should have access to the latest technology.
  Since August 9, 2001, new facts have come to light and the technology 
has moved forward to the extent that the policy is holding back our 
scientists and physicians in their search for cures. I have a friend 
and constituent in Pittsburgh named Jim Cordy who suffers from 
Parkinson's. Whenever I see Jim, he carries an hourglass, to remind me 
that the sands of time are passing and that the days of his life 
are slipping away. That is a pretty emphatic message from the 
hourglass. So it seems to me that this is the kind of sense of urgency 
which ought to motivate Congress and the biomedical research community.

  On March 19, 2007, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, President Bush's appointee to 
lead the National Institutes of Health, testified before the Senate 
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the NIH 
budget and stem cells. At that time he stated, ``It is clear today that 
American science would be better served and the nation would be better 
served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines . . . To 
sideline NIH in such an issue of importance, in my view, is 
shortsighted. I think it wouldn't serve the nation well in the long 
run.'' His testimony clearly shows that the time has come to move 
forward.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act lifts the August 9, 2001, date 
restriction, thus making stem cell lines eligible for federally funded 
research regardless of the date on which they were derived. Expanding 
the number of stem cell lines would accelerate scientific progress 
towards cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases and 
debilitating health conditions. The bill puts in place strong ethical 
requirements on stem cell lines that are funded with Federal dollars. 
In fact, several stem cell lines currently funded with Federal dollars 
would not be eligible under the policies put in place by this bill. The 
requirements include: embryos used to derive stem cells were originally 
created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical 
need; the individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos 
were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in 
a woman and will otherwise be discarded; the individuals for whom the

[[Page S2564]]

embryos were created have provided written consent for embryo donation; 
and the donors can not receive any financial or other inducements to 
make the donation.
  When President Bush's Council on Bioethics reported on several 
theoretical methods for deriving stem cells without destroying embryos, 
I immediately scheduled a hearing to investigate these ideas. On July 
12, 2005, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee heard testimony from five 
witnesses describing several theoretical techniques for deriving stem 
cells without destroying embryos. The stem cells would theoretically 
have the key ability to become any type of cell. The techniques 
discussed included single cell derivation of stem cells; altered 
nuclear transfer; deriving stem cells from so-called ``dead'' embryos; 
and, perhaps the most promising, turning adult cells back into stem 
cells.
  Legislation, which I first introduced with Senator Rick Santorum in 
the 109th Congress, was meant to encourage these alternative methods 
for deriving stem cells without harming human embryos. That legislation 
has been incorporated into the current bill, which amends the Public 
Health Service Act by inserting a section that:
  1, Mandates that the Secretary of Health & Human Services shall 
support meritorious peer-reviewed research to develop techniques for 
the derivation of stem cells without creating or destroying human 
embryos.
  2, Requires the Secretary to issue guidelines within 90 days to 
implement this research and to identify and prioritize the next 
research steps.
  3, Requires the Secretary to consider techniques outlined by the 
President's Council on Bioethics--such as altered nuclear transfer and 
single cell derivation.
  4, Requires the Secretary to report yearly on the activities carried 
out under this authorization.
  5, Includes a ``Rule of Construction'' stating: Nothing in this 
section shall be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or 
regulation regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by 
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not specifically 
authorized by this section.
  6, Define ``human embryo'' by reference to the latest definition 
contained in the appropriations act for the Department of Health & 
Human Services.
  7, Authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' for fiscal year 2010 
through 2012.
  Knowing that scientists are never certain exactly which research will 
lead to the next great cure; I have always supported opening as many 
avenues of research as possible. Based on that line of reasoning, I 
have always supported human embryonic, adult, and cord blood stem cell 
research. My goal is to see cures for the various afflictions that 
lower the quality of life--or end the lives--of Americans. I believe 
this bill implements this philosophy by opening of embryonic stem cell 
research and encouraging alternatives.
  Importantly, the bill does not allow Federal funds to be used for the 
derivation of stem cell lines--the step in the process where the embryo 
is destroyed. Also, the bill does not address the subject of cloning, 
which continues to be banned in the appropriations bills for Health & 
Human Services.
  President Barack Obama has indicated that he will overturn the 
current restrictions. I feel it is important to codify this important 
policy change so that the policy does not ping-pong back and forth with 
each successive President. This uncertainty slows the progress of 
science. Young scientists rightly avoid fields of science for which 
funding may come and go due to political whim rather than scientific 
and medical merit. A temporary end to the current restrictions is an 
incomplete and ultimately self-defeating solution.
  I strongly believe that the funding provided by Congress should be 
invested in the best research to address diseases based on medical need 
and scientific opportunity. Politics has no place in the equation. 
Throughout history there are numerous examples of politics stifling 
science in the name of ideology. Galileo was imprisoned for his theory 
that the planets revolve around the Sun. The Institute of Genetics of 
the Soviet Academy of Sciences opposed the use of hybrid varieties of 
wheat because it was based on the science of the West. Instead, they 
supported a doctrine called ``acquired characteristics,'' which was 
made the official Soviet position. This resulted in lower yields for 
Soviet wheat throughout the former Soviet Union in the first half of 
the 20th century. These historical examples teach us that we must make 
these decisions based on sound science, not politics. I urge this body 
to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act so that this Congress 
does not look as foolish in hindsight as these examples.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 488. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to require group and individual health insurance coverage and 
group health plans to provide coverage for individuals participating in 
approved cancer clinical trials; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help 
cancer patients and bring us closer to finding a cure for that 
devastating and deadly disease.
  Clinical trials are one of the most effective weapons in our nation's 
ongoing fight against cancer. Experimental treatments both save lives 
and advance research.
  However, many health insurance policies discourage enrollment in 
these trials by refusing to cover trial participants' routine health 
care, even as patients continue to pay monthly premiums.
  Take, for example, Sheryl Freeman from Dayton, OH. Sheryl and her 
husband Craig visited my office in Washington, DC 2 years ago to tell 
their story:
  Sheryl was a retired school teacher and was covered under Craig's 
insurance plan. Craig has been a Federal employee for 20 years and has 
one of the best health plans in the country.
  Yet they found that when Sheryl--who had been diagnosed with multiple 
myloma--tried to enroll in a clinical trial to save her life, their 
insurance company would not cover routine costs that would have been 
covered had she not enrolled in the clinical trial.
  For instance, in addition to participating in the clinical trial at 
Ohio State's James Cancer Hospital, Sheryl needed to visit her 
oncologist in Dayton at least once a week for standard cancer 
monitoring, which included scans and blood tests. But her insurance 
company would not cover these services if she enrolled in a clinical 
trial.
  Sheryl wanted to take part in a clinical trial because she hoped it 
would help her. She hoped that it might save her life, give her more 
time, or help future patients with the same type of cancer.
  But rather than devoting her energy toward combating cancer, Sheryl 
spent the last months of her life haggling with her insurance company. 
By the time her insurer finally agreed to cover costs they never should 
have denied, it was too late. The delays and denials from Sheryl's 
insurance company affected her treatment and, likely, her survival.
  Sheryl died on December 9, 2007.
  Sadly, this is not an isolated case. Across Ohio and the Nation, 
insurers are using patients' participation in clinical trials as an 
excuse to deny health benefits that would otherwise be covered.
  In fact, about 20 percent of patients who try to enroll in clinical 
trials are denied coverage by their insurers. This statistic doesn't 
capture those patients who refrain from entering a trial because they 
have been forewarned of coverage barriers.
  The Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act--which has been introduced 
in the House by Representative Israel and which I introduced last year 
as well--would eliminate these barriers for cancer patients. Under the 
legislation, health care costs associated with a clinical trial would 
still be covered by the trial sponsors; however, insurers would not be 
permitted to deny benefits for other routine health care otherwise 
covered under their health plan. Similar legislation was passed in the 
Ohio General Assembly last year, but this federal bill would apply to 
all insurance carriers, not just those regulated by states.

[[Page S2565]]

  The Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act is a lifesaving bill 
endorsed by over thirty voluntary health organizations, including the 
Lance Armstrong Foundation, the National Patient Advocate Foundation, 
and the American Association for Cancer Research.
  It is unthinkable that patients battling cancer must also fight 
insurers for basic benefits that should never be in doubt. To make 
progress on finding a cure for cancer, we need to encourage 
participation in research, not permit insurers to inhibit it.
  I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting this important 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Burr, Ms. Collins, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Bunning, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 491. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums 
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental 
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the bipartisan 
Federal and Military Retiree Health Care Equity Act. I introduce this 
bill with Senators Burr, Collins, Cardin, Durbin, Warner, Rockefeller, 
Akaka, Dodd, Kerry, and Bunning. This legislation will provide some 
relief for our Nation's Federal and military retirees from the 
increases in their health care plans. This measure extends premium 
conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their 
health insurance premiums with pretax dollars.
  I believe strongly in protecting the rights and benefits of our 
federal and military retirees, many of whom have given years of service 
to our country. I commend their service to our Nation.
  The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to 
Federal and military retirees living on a fixed income. Health care 
premiums are rising for Federal and military retirees and their 
families. This legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and 
military retirees are able to continue their health care coverage with 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and supplemental TRICARE 
health insurance plans as premiums continue to rise.
  In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to active 
Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private 
sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the 
amount of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan premiums, it helps 
to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's Federal tax 
liability.
  Extending this benefit to Federal employees requires a change in the 
tax law, specifically section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the 
legislation, the benefit would be concurrently afforded to our Nation's 
military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs.
  A number of organizations representing federal and military retirees 
are strongly behind this initiative: National Active and Retired 
Federal Employees Association, The Military Coalition, National 
Treasury Employees Union, National Association of Postmasters of the 
United States, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, National 
Association of Postal Supervisors, National Federation of Federal 
Employees, National Association of Government Employees, National Rural 
Letter Carrier Association, National Postal Mail Handlers, American 
Foreign Service Association, and American Postal Workers Union.
  The Federal and Military Retiree Health Care Equity Act has enjoyed 
overwhelming, bipartisan support for four Congresses. This is a matter 
of basic fairness. Our Federal employee and military retirees deserve 
access to the same quality, affordable health care they received as 
active members of the civil service and military. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward in this 
Congress.
  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. 491

       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 ``Federal and Military Retiree 
     Health Care Equity Act''.

     SEC. 2. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY 
                   FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and 
     military retirees.--
       ``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title 
     5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the 
     annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and 
     benefits under the health benefits program established by 
     chapter 89 of such title 5.
       ``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of 
     being a member or former member of the uniformed services of 
     the United States with respect to a choice between such pay 
     and benefits under the health benefits programs established 
     by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting 
     after section 223 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 224. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an 
     individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts 
     paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance 
     purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits 
     programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and 
     dependents.
       ``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount 
     allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be 
     taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the 
     taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by inserting after paragraph (21) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(22) TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
     The deduction allowed by section 224.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 224. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 225. Cross reference.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian 
     Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary 
     so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 2) 
     shall be offered beginning with the first open enrollment 
     period, afforded under section 8905(g)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, which begins not less than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military 
     Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with 
     the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section 
     1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the 
     option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (as so added) shall be offered beginning 
     with the first open enrollment period afforded under health 
     benefits programs established under chapter 55 of such title, 
     which begins not less than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 495. A bill to increase public confidence in the justice system 
and address any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities in the 
criminal process; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice 
Integrity Act of 2009. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, has joined me as an original 
cosponsor of this legislation. I think it is important to

[[Page S2566]]

begin this discussion with the first words that appear in the 
Constitution of the United States. ``We the people of the United 
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . 
.'' The Founding Fathers chose Justice as a cornerstone for the 
foundation of our country. Justice is defined as fairness, moral 
rightness, and as a system of law in which every person receives his or 
her due from the system, including all of their guaranteed rights. 
There are many perceptions and realities that surround our criminal 
justice system.
  Our Constitution guarantees that all Americans, no matter their race, 
color, creed or gender, have the right to equal protection under the 
law. Yet statistics, reports and data reflect a possibility of bias in 
our justice system. For example, a distressing statistic shows that one 
out of every three African-American males born today can expect to go 
to jail during his lifetime. African-Americans are disproportionately 
arrested and incarcerated, they are more likely to be pulled over by a 
police car while driving, and they are three times more likely to be 
arrested for a drug offense than white Americans and are nearly 10 
times as likely to enter prison for drug offenses. Take for example, 
how two forms of the same drug are handled differently in our justice 
system: crack cocaine and powder cocaine. In 2006, blacks constituted 
82 percent of those sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws while 
whites constituted of only 8.8 percent, despite the fact that more than 
66 percent of people who use crack cocaine are white. Government data 
further demonstrates that drug rates are similar among all racial and 
ethnic groups.
  A 2007 study released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics revealed that while Black, Hispanic and White 
drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police, Blacks and 
Hispanics are much more likely to be searched and arrested. These types 
of disparities and the perception of bias is unacceptable and we should 
take bold steps to correct these injustices. During the last Congress, 
my good friend and former member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Biden, introduced this bill and during his introductory speech he 
stated ``nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important 
than in our criminal justice system.'' I couldn't agree more with that 
statement, which is why I have reintroduced this very important 
legislation.
  Just last week Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech for 
African-American History Month. In that speech, Attorney General Holder 
asked us, as a nation, to ``find ways to force ourselves to confront 
that which we have become experts at avoiding''. One way to do that is 
to look at the disparities in our justice system that have existed for 
many years and can be traced back to slavery and the Jim Crow era. In 
President Obama's March 2008 speech on Race, he asked Americans to 
``march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more 
prosperous America.'' He further stated that in order to perfect our 
union we must continue to ``insist on a full measure of justice in 
every aspect of American life.'' I heard President Obama that day, and 
I heard Attorney General Holder last week. I believe we are at a 
crossroads today where we can either take on the challenges and attack 
these injustices or continue to turn our heads away from the problems 
in our justice system. The Justice Integrity Act responds to the racial 
and ethnic disparities and perceptions that surround our Federal 
justice system.
  The Justice Integrity Act will create 10 pilot programs across the 
country that will help create a plan that will ensure that law 
enforcement priorities and initiatives--including charging and plea 
decisions, as well as sentencing recommendations are not influenced by 
racial or ethnic bias but instead apply the law in a just and fair 
manner to all individuals. These 10 pilot programs will be set up at 
the discretion of the Attorney General in 10 different U.S. attorney 
offices. Each U.S. attorney will create an advisory group including all 
the major stakeholders in the justice system. Each of the individuals 
will gather information and examine data which will lead to a report on 
their findings and recommendations to the district on how to reduce 
unjustified racial and ethnic disparities.
  Our current justice system is not working at its greatest potential. 
This bill will not only help restore the public's trust in our justice 
system but also restore integrity in our justice system. Any form of 
bias in our criminal justice system erodes the core principles in our 
Constitution specifically that ``all men are created equal'' under the 
law and that our justice system is not only fair but just.
  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. 495

       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 ``Justice Integrity Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the pursuit of justice requires the fair application of 
     the law;
       (2) racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal process 
     have contributed to a growing perception of bias in the 
     criminal justice system;
       (3) there are a variety of possible causes of disparities 
     in criminal justice statistics among racial and ethnic groups 
     and these causes may differ throughout the United States, 
     including crime rates, racial discrimination, ethnic and 
     cultural insensitivity, or unconscious bias, as well as other 
     factors;
       (4) the Nation would benefit from an understanding of all 
     factors causing a disparate impact on the criminal justice 
     system; and
       (5) programs that promote fairness will increase public 
     confidence in the criminal justice system, increase public 
     safety, and further the pursuit of justice.

     SEC. 3. PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a 
     pilot program in 10 United States districts in order to 
     promote fairness, and the perception of fairness, in the 
     Federal criminal justice system, and to determine whether 
     legislation is required.
       (b) Program Requirements.--
       (1) U.S. attorneys.--The Attorney General shall designate, 
     in accordance with paragraph (3), 10 United States Attorneys 
     who shall each implement a plan in accordance with section 4, 
     beginning not later than 1 month after those United States 
     Attorneys are designated by the Attorney General.
       (2) Purpose.--The purposes of the plans required by this 
     section are--
       (A) to gather racial and ethnic data on investigations and 
     prosecutions in the United States districts and the causes of 
     disparities, if any;
       (B) to determine the extent to which the communities' 
     perception of bias has affected confidence in the Federal 
     criminal justice system;
       (C) to analyze whether measures may be taken to reduce 
     unwarranted disparities, if any, and increase confidence in 
     the criminal justice system; and
       (D) to make recommendations, to the extent possible, to 
     ensure that law enforcement priorities and initiatives, 
     charging and plea bargaining decisions, sentencing 
     recommendations, and other steps within the criminal process 
     are not influenced by racial and ethnic stereotyping or bias, 
     and do not produce unwarranted disparities from otherwise 
     neutral laws or policies.
       (3) Criteria for selection.--
       (A) In general.--The 10 pilot districts referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall include districts of varying 
     compositions with respect to size, case load, geography, and 
     racial and ethnic composition.
       (B) Metropolitan areas.--At least 3 of the United States 
     Attorneys designated by the Attorney General shall be in 
     Federal districts encompassing metropolitan areas.

     SEC. 4. PLAN AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) United states attorney.--Each United States Attorney 
     shall, in consultation with an advisory group appointed in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), develop and implement a plan 
     in accordance with subsections (b) and (c).
       (2) Advisory group.--
       (A) Appointment.--Not later than 90 days after designation 
     by the Attorney General, the United States Attorney in each 
     of the 10 pilot districts selected pursuant to section 3 
     shall appoint an advisory group, after consultation with the 
     chief judge of the district and criminal justice 
     professionals within the district.
       (B) Membership.--The advisory group of a United States 
     Attorney shall include--
       (i) 1 or more senior social scientists with expertise in 
     research methods or statistics; and
       (ii) individuals and entities who play important roles in 
     the criminal justice process and have broad-based community 
     representation such as--

       (I) Federal and State prosecutors;
       (II) Federal and State defenders, if present in the 
     district, and private defense counsel;
       (III) Federal and State judges;

[[Page S2567]]

       (IV) Federal and State law enforcement officials and union 
     representatives;
       (V) a member of the United States Sentencing Commission or 
     designee;
       (VI) parole and probation officers;
       (VII) correctional officers;
       (VIII) victim's rights representatives;
       (IX) civil rights organizations;
       (X) business and professional representatives; and
       (XI) faith based organizations that provide services to 
     people involved in the criminal justice system.

       (C) Term limit.--Subject to subparagraph (D), a member of 
     the advisory group shall not serve longer than 5 years.
       (D) Permanent members.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), 
     the following shall be permanent members of the advisory 
     group for that district:
       (i) The chief judge for the judicial district.
       (ii) The Federal defender for the judicial district.
       (iii) The United States Attorney for the judicial district.
       (E) Reporter.--The United States Attorney may designate a 
     reporter for each advisory group, who may be compensated in 
     accordance with guidelines established by the Executive 
     Office of the United States Attorneys.
       (F) Independent contractors.--The members of an advisory 
     group of a United States Attorney and any person designated 
     as a reporter for such group--
       (i) shall be considered independent contractors of the 
     United States Attorney's Office when in the performance of 
     official duties of the advisory group; and
       (ii) may not, solely by reason of service on or for the 
     advisory group, be prohibited from practicing law before any 
     court.
       (b) Development and Implementation of a Plan and Report.--
       (1) Advisory group report.--The advisory group appointed 
     under subsection (a)(2) shall--
       (A)(i) systematically collect and analyze quantitative data 
     on the race and ethnicity of the defendant and victim at each 
     stage of prosecution, including case intake, bail requests, 
     declinations, selection of charges, diversion from 
     prosecution or incarceration, plea offers, sentencing 
     recommendations, fast-track sentencing, and use of 
     alternative sanctions; and
       (ii) at a minimum, collect aggregate data capable of 
     individualization and tracking through the system so that any 
     cumulative racial or ethnic disadvantage can be analyzed;
       (B) seek to determine the causes of racial and ethnic 
     disparities in a district, and whether these disparities are 
     substantially explained by sound law enforcement policies or 
     if they are at least partially attributable to 
     discrimination, insensitivity, or unconscious bias;
       (C) examine the extent to which racial and ethnic 
     disparities are attributable to--
       (i) law enforcement priorities, prosecutorial priorities, 
     the substantive provisions of legislation enacted by 
     Congress; or
       (ii) the penalty schemes enacted by Congress or implemented 
     by the United States Sentencing Commission;
       (D) examine data including--
       (i) the racial and ethnic demographics of the United States 
     Attorney's district;
       (ii) defendants charged in all categories of offense by 
     race and ethnicity, and, where applicable, the race and 
     ethnicity of any identified victim;
       (iii) recommendations for sentencing enhancements and 
     reductions, including the filing of substantial assistance 
     motions, whether at sentencing or post-conviction, by race 
     and ethnicity;
       (iv) charging policies, including decisions as to who 
     should be charged in Federal rather than State court when 
     either forum is available, and whether these policies tend to 
     result in racial or ethnic disparities among defendants 
     charged in Federal court, including whether relative 
     disparities exist between State and Federal defendants 
     charged with similar offenses;
       (v) the racial and ethnic composition of the Federal 
     prosecutors in the district; and
       (vi) the extent to which training in the exercise of 
     discretion, including cultural competency, is provided 
     prosecutors;
       (E) consult with an educational or independent research 
     group, if necessary, to conduct work under this subsection; 
     and
       (F) submit to the United States Attorney by the end of the 
     second year after their initial appointment a report and 
     proposed plan, which shall be made available to the public 
     and which shall include--
       (i) factual findings and conclusions on racial and ethnic 
     disparities, if any, and the State of public confidence in 
     the criminal process;
       (ii) recommended measures, rules, and programs for reducing 
     unjustified disparities, if any, and increasing public 
     confidence; and
       (iii) an explanation of the manner in which the recommended 
     plan complies with this paragraph.
       (2) Adoption of plan.--Not later than 60 days after 
     receiving and considering the advisory group's report and 
     proposed plan under paragraph (1), the United States Attorney 
     appointed under section 3 shall adopt and implement a plan.
       (3) Copy of report.--The United States Attorney shall 
     transmit a copy of the plan and report adopted and 
     implemented, in accordance with this subsection, together 
     with the report and plan recommended by the advisory group, 
     to the Attorney General. The United States Attorney shall 
     include with the plan an explanation of any recommendation of 
     the advisory group that is not included in the plan.
       (4) Congress.--The Attorney General shall transmit to the 
     United States Attorney's in every Federal district and to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives copies of any plan and accompanying report 
     submitted by a pilot district.
       (c) Periodic United States Attorney Assessment.--After 
     adopting and implementing a plan under subsection (b), each 
     United States Attorney in a pilot district shall annually 
     evaluate the efficacy of the plan. In performing such 
     assessment, the United States Attorney shall consult with the 
     advisory group appointed in accordance with subsection 
     (a)(2). Each assessment shall be submitted to the Executive 
     Office for United States Attorneys for review in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (d) Information on the Pilot Program.--
       (1) Report and model plan.--Not later than 5 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 
     shall--
       (A) prepare a comprehensive report on all plans received 
     pursuant to this section;
       (B) based on all the plans received pursuant to this 
     section the Attorney General shall also develop one or more 
     model plans; and
       (C) transmit copies of the report and model plan or plans 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Continued oversight.--The Attorney General shall, on a 
     continuing basis--
       (A) study ways to reduce unwarranted racial and ethnic 
     disparate impact in the Federal criminal system; and
       (B) make recommendations to all United States Attorneys on 
     ways to improve the system.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 for use, 
     at the discretion of the Attorney General, by the United 
     States Attorneys' advisory groups in the development and 
     implementation of plans under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 497. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
capitation grants to increase the number of nursing faculty and 
students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. As we prepare to tackle the many challenges of our health 
care system, let's take the time to make sure that nursing schools are 
in a position to teach and train a new generation of nurses and nurse 
educators. Today, I am introducing the Nurse Education, Expansion, and 
Development (NEED) Act to provide schools of nursing with grants for 
faculty, equipment, and clinical laboratories. The proposed grants give 
colleges of nursing the flexibility to use federal funds to address the 
very problems that keep nursing schools from hiring more teachers 
today.
  The healthcare crisis is complicated and the challenges are immense, 
but the runaway costs and inefficiencies in our health care system are 
no longer sustainable. So as we begin to look at healthcare reform in 
this Congress, let's keep in mind one lesson we learned from 
Massachusetts' recent experience. After a landmark healthcare reform 
law to extend healthcare coverage to every person in the State, the 
sudden demand for primary care professionals outpaced the supply.
  Nurses can help fill that primary care gap. Today, nurse 
practitioners are already taking over at the helm of primary care in 
many areas that don't have any primary care physicians. Nurses are 
staffing health care clinics, and many are opening their own practices. 
Increased standards of training have opened new doors for nurses who 
want to further their careers but do not want to attend medical school. 
The numbers tell the story. In 2000 there were roughly 90,000 nurse 
practitioners in the U.S. By 2015, it is estimated there will be as 
many as 135,000.
  Unfortunately, the number of nurses is not keeping pace with the 
growing health care needs of our Nation. In 2000, the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services found that the U.S. is 110,000 short of 
the number of nurses we need. By 2005, the shortage had doubled to 
219,000. By 2020, it is expected we will be more than 1 million nurses 
short of the need.
  Contributing to this shortage is a lack of faculty to teach and train 
future nurses. In a survey of more than 400 schools of nursing last 
year, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing found that 63 
percent of the schools reported vacancies on their faculty. An 
additional 17.8 percent said

[[Page S2568]]

they were fully staffed, but still needed more faculty to handle the 
number of students who want to be trained. Last year, nursing colleges 
across the Nation denied admission to 49,948 qualified applicants 
because there were not enough faculty members to teach the students.
  Statistics paint a bleak picture for the availability of nursing 
faculty now and into the future. The median age of a doctorally 
prepared nursing faculty member is 56 years old. The average age of 
retirement for faculty at schools of nursing is 65 years. It is 
expected that 200 to 300 doctorally prepared faculty will be eligible 
for retirement each year from 2005 through 2012, reducing faculty even 
though more than 1 million replacement nurses will be needed.
  The number of qualified students turned away from nursing schools in 
Illinois reflects the national trend and continues to grow. In 2002-
2003, 502 qualified students were rejected from Illinois nursing 
schools. In 2008, 2,523 students were turned away because of lack of 
faculty and resources--over 1600 more students than in 2007. To avoid 
the vast shortage HHS is projecting, we have to figure out how to make 
a significant increase that we can sustain in the number of nurses 
graduating and entering the workforce each year.
  My hope is that the bill I am introducing today can be part of the 
answer. Nursing schools need the resources to teach and train a new 
generation of nurses and nurse educators. Let's not take on health care 
reform without considering the more than 2.9 million nurses in our 
country today who are critical to our health care system. And as we 
look at improving our health care system, let's start by investing in 
the nursing pipeline today for the health care needs of tomorrow.
  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. 497

       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 ``Nurse Education, Expansion, 
     and Development Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) While the Nurse Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205) 
     helped to increase applications to schools of nursing by 125 
     percent, schools of nursing have been unable to accommodate 
     the influx of interested students because they have an 
     insufficient number of nurse educators. The American 
     Association of Colleges of Nursing estimates that--
       (A) in the 2008-2009 school year--
       (i) 62.8 percent of schools of nursing had from 1 to 16 
     vacant faculty positions; and
       (ii) an additional 17.8 percent of schools of nursing 
     needed additional faculty, but lacked the resources needed to 
     add more positions; and
       (B) 49,948 eligible candidates were denied admission to 
     schools of nursing in 2008, primarily due to an insufficient 
     number of faculty members.
       (2) A growing number of nurses with doctoral degrees are 
     choosing careers outside of education. Over the last few 
     years, 20.7 percent of doctoral nursing graduates reported 
     seeking employment outside the education profession.
       (3) The average age of nurse faculty at retirement is 62.5 
     years. With the average age of doctorally-prepared nurse 
     faculty at 55.6 years in 2007, a wave of retirements is 
     expected within the next 10 years.
       (4) Master's and doctoral programs in nursing are not 
     producing a large enough pool of potential nurse educators to 
     meet the projected demand for nurses over the next 10 years. 
     While graduations from master's and doctoral programs in 
     nursing rose by 12.8 percent (or 1,918 graduates) and 4.5 
     percent (or 24 graduates), respectively, in the 2008-2009 
     school year, projections still demonstrate a shortage of 
     nurse faculty. Given current trends, there will be at least 
     2,616 unfilled faculty positions in 2012.
       (5) According to the November 2007 Monthly Labor Review of 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1,000,000 new and 
     replacement nurses will be needed by 2016.

     SEC. 3. CAPITATION GRANTS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF NURSING 
                   FACULTY AND STUDENTS.

       (a) Grants.--Part D of title VIII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296p) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 832. CAPITATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose described in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary, acting through the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, shall award a grant each fiscal year 
     in an amount determined in accordance with subsection (c) to 
     each eligible school of nursing that submits an application 
     in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Purpose.--A funding agreement for a grant under this 
     section is that the eligible school of nursing involved will 
     expend the grant to increase the number of nursing faculty 
     and students at the school, including by hiring new faculty, 
     retaining current faculty, purchasing educational equipment 
     and audiovisual laboratories, enhancing clinical 
     laboratories, repairing and expanding infrastructure, or 
     recruiting students.
       ``(c) Grant Computation.--
       ``(1) Amount per student.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     amount of a grant to an eligible school of nursing under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be the total of the 
     following:
       ``(A) $1,800 for each full-time or part-time student who is 
     enrolled at the school in a graduate program in nursing 
     that--
       ``(i) leads to a master's degree, a doctoral degree, or an 
     equivalent degree; and
       ``(ii) prepares individuals to serve as faculty through 
     additional course work in education and ensuring competency 
     in an advanced practice area.
       ``(B) $1,405 for each full-time or part-time student who--
       ``(i) is enrolled at the school in a program in nursing 
     leading to a bachelor of science degree, a bachelor of 
     nursing degree, a graduate degree in nursing if such program 
     does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), or an 
     equivalent degree; and
       ``(ii) has not more than 3 years of academic credits 
     remaining in the program.
       ``(C) $966 for each full-time or part-time student who is 
     enrolled at the school in a program in nursing leading to an 
     associate degree in nursing or an equivalent degree.
       ``(2) Limitation.--In calculating the amount of a grant to 
     a school under paragraph (1), the Secretary may not make a 
     payment with respect to a particular student--
       ``(A) for more than 2 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) who is enrolled in a graduate 
     program in nursing leading to a master's degree or an 
     equivalent degree;
       ``(B) for more than 4 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) who is enrolled in a graduate 
     program in nursing leading to a doctoral degree or an 
     equivalent degree;
       ``(C) for more than 3 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(B); or
       ``(D) for more than 2 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(C).
       ``(d) Eligibility.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `eligible school of nursing' means a school of nursing that--
       ``(1) is accredited by a nursing accrediting agency 
     recognized by the Secretary of Education;
       ``(2) has a passage rate on the National Council Licensure 
     Examination for Registered Nurses of not less than 80 percent 
     for each of the 3 school years preceding submission of the 
     grant application; and
       ``(3) has a graduation rate (based on the number of 
     students in a class who graduate relative to, for a 
     baccalaureate program, the number of students who were 
     enrolled in the class at the beginning of junior year or, for 
     an associate degree program, the number of students who were 
     enrolled in the class at the end of the first year) of not 
     less than 80 percent for each of the 3 school years preceding 
     submission of the grant application.
       ``(e) Requirements.--The Secretary may award a grant under 
     this section to an eligible school of nursing only if the 
     school gives assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that, 
     for each school year for which the grant is awarded, the 
     school will comply with the following:
       ``(1) The school will maintain a passage rate on the 
     National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses 
     of not less than 80 percent.
       ``(2) The school will maintain a graduation rate (as 
     described in subsection (d)(3)) of not less than 80 percent.
       ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the first-
     year enrollment of full-time nursing students in the school 
     will exceed such enrollment for the preceding school year by 
     5 percent or 5 students, whichever is greater.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the first school 
     year for which a school receives a grant under this section.
       ``(C) With respect to any school year, the Secretary may 
     waive application of subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the physical facilities at the school involved limit 
     the school from enrolling additional students; or
       ``(ii) the school has increased enrollment in the school 
     (as described in subparagraph (A)) for each of the 2 
     preceding school years.
       ``(4) Not later than 1 year after receipt of the grant, the 
     school will formulate and implement a plan to accomplish at 
     least 2 of the following:
       ``(A) Establishing or significantly expanding an 
     accelerated baccalaureate degree nursing program designed to 
     graduate new nurses in 12 to 18 months.
       ``(B) Establishing cooperative intradisciplinary education 
     among schools of nursing with a view toward shared use of 
     technological resources, including information technology.
       ``(C) Establishing cooperative interdisciplinary training 
     between schools of nursing and schools of allied health, 
     medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, optometry, podiatry, 
     pharmacy,

[[Page S2569]]

     public health, or veterinary medicine, including training for 
     the use of the interdisciplinary team approach to the 
     delivery of health services.
       ``(D) Integrating core competencies on evidence-based 
     practice, quality improvements, and patient-centered care.
       ``(E) Increasing admissions, enrollment, and retention of 
     qualified individuals who are financially disadvantaged.
       ``(F) Increasing enrollment of minority and diverse student 
     populations.
       ``(G) Increasing enrollment of new graduate baccalaureate 
     nursing students in graduate programs that educate nurse 
     faculty members.
       ``(H) Developing post-baccalaureate residency programs to 
     prepare nurses for practice in specialty areas where nursing 
     shortages are most severe.
       ``(I) Increasing integration of geriatric content into the 
     core curriculum.
       ``(J) Partnering with economically disadvantaged 
     communities to provide nursing education.
       ``(K) Expanding the ability of nurse managed health centers 
     to provide clinical education training sites to nursing 
     students.
       ``(5) The school will submit an annual report to the 
     Secretary that includes updated information on the school 
     with respect to student enrollment, student retention, 
     graduation rates, passage rates on the National Council 
     Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses, the number of 
     graduates employed as nursing faculty or nursing care 
     providers within 12 months of graduation, and the number of 
     students who are accepted into graduate programs for further 
     nursing education.
       ``(6) The school will allow the Secretary to make on-site 
     inspections, and will comply with the Secretary's requests 
     for information, to determine the extent to which the school 
     is complying with the requirements of this section.
       ``(f) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     the results of grants under this section and submit to the 
     Congress--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, an interim report on such results; 
     and
       ``(2) not later than the end of fiscal year 2010, a final 
     report on such results.
       ``(g) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, a 
     school nursing shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     and assurances as the Secretary may require.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the costs of carrying out this 
     section (except the costs described in paragraph (2)), there 
     are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2010, $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $95,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2012.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--For the costs of administering 
     this section, including the costs of evaluating the results 
     of grants and submitting reports to the Congress, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
       (b) GAO Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to 
     the Congress on ways to increase participation in the nurse 
     faculty profession.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) shall include the following:
       (A) A discussion of the master's degree and doctoral degree 
     programs that are successful in placing graduates as faculty 
     in schools of nursing.
       (B) An examination of compensation disparities throughout 
     the nursing profession and compensation disparities between 
     higher education instructional faculty generally and higher 
     education instructional nursing faculty.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR:
  S. 498. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
dental insurance for veterans and survivors and dependents of veterans, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce 
legislation that would give our veterans, surviving spouses, and 
certain dependent children the option to buy dental insurance coverage 
through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA. My bill is based on a 
very successful program that has been in place since 1998 for military 
retirees and their families.
  Under the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program, TRDP, military retirees are 
given the option to purchase dental coverage through the Department of 
Defense. Since the program started, over 1 million eligible 
participants have chosen to buy dental coverage through this plan, 
including over 56,000 in my home State of North Carolina. Those 
individuals have access to a network of about 112,000 dental plan 
providers across the Nation. Premiums range from $14 to $48 per month 
per person, depending on the region and type of dental plan selected. 
With this kind of success, it seems only fitting that we offer the same 
kind of benefit to our veterans.
  VA runs the largest integrated health care system in the Nation. 
Although VA provides dental benefits to the 7.9 million veterans 
enrolled in the healthcare system, these benefits are either limited to 
a select group of people or can only be provided under very limited 
circumstances. For example, VA provides comprehensive dental care to 
veterans for 180 days after they leave service; who have service-
related dental conditions; who are in nursing homes and require dental 
care; or who fall under other very strict guidelines.
  My bill would supplement this limited coverage by giving veterans and 
survivors the option to purchase a more comprehensive dental plan. Of 
course, many veterans may have dental coverage through their employers 
or through an individual policy. My bill extends this dental plan 
option to all enrolled veterans.
  As I mentioned, the bill is modeled after the successful program that 
is now offered to TRICARE retirees. Federal employees also have access 
to a similar benefit option for dental coverage. Like these other 
programs, this VA program would be entirely voluntary and provide 
needed coverage from a network of dental professionals in local 
communities.
  This bill would not replace VA's dental services; it is just another 
option for those who want to have access to group insurance rates that 
they could not otherwise get on their own. This idea is like the 44 
year relationship VA has with Prudential, who provides active duty 
servicemembers and veterans with group life insurance policies. The 
most important part of the relationship is that servicemembers and 
veterans get to reap the benefits of group rates and competition.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 501. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer, 
Kohl, Leahy, and Brown to reintroduce an important piece of 
legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act. Our 
legislation eliminates one of the most prominent loopholes that brand 
name drug companies use to limit consumer access to lower cost generic 
drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called ``authorized generic'' drugs 
during the 180-day exclusivity period that Congress designed to 
specifically allow true generics to enter the market.
  An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced 
by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet 
repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are 
cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. In 
reality, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, 
extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for 
consumers over the long-term. As I have said many times, authorized 
generics are a sham. They are brand name prescription drugs in 
disguise.
  After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug, the 
manufacturer doesn't want to let go of their enormous profits. So, they 
repackage the drug and refer to it as a generic in order to achieve a 
very simple goal--to drive true generics out of the market by offering 
the drug at a lower price initially; then, when victory is assured, 
raising the cost on the so-called ``authorized generic'' to gain a 
larger profit. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even 
more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name 
pharmaceuticals expire.
  In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman legislation to provide 
consumers greater access to lower cost generic drugs. The intent of 
this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the 
ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and 
innovative products. Over time, brand name manufacturers found ways to 
exploit certain loopholes in the Hatch-Waxman law to the detriment of 
generics.
  As a result, Congress enacted amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act as

[[Page S2570]]

part of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law. These amendments were 
designed to close long-standing loopholes that were delaying generic 
competition and hindering consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. 
These reforms were also intended to strengthen the 180-day period of 
market exclusivity for generic manufacturers that pursue costly patent 
challenges.
  The Hatch-Waxman Act and the additional reforms included in the 2003 
Medicare law provide crucial incentives for generic drug companies to 
enter the market and make prescription drugs more affordable for 
consumers. As health care spending continues to skyrocket, finding ways 
to reduce costs is crucial. Today, generic medications comprise more 
then 56 percent of all prescriptions in this country, but they only 
generate 13 percent of our Nation's drug costs. Furthermore, generic 
drugs are 50 percent to 80 percent cheaper than brand name drugs. In 
fact, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion a 
year at retail pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make 
a huge difference, particularly during a recession. We must protect the 
true intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act and increase access to affordable 
prescription drugs for all Americans. The Fair Prescription Drug 
Competition Act does just that by eliminating the authorized generics 
loophole, protecting the integrity of the 180 days, and improving 
consumer access to lower cost generic drugs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 499. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal the 
ultra-deepwater and unconventional onshore natural gas and other 
petroleum research and development program; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reintroduce the 
Withdraw Energy Addicting New Subsidies Act. I first introduced this 
legislation in the 109th Congress to repeal what I believed to be a 
back-door subsidy to the oil and gas industry at a time when the oil 
and gas industry didn't need any more subsidies. This hidden subsidy 
was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And what it does is to 
directly transfer $50 million dollars a year of oil and gas royalties, 
which would otherwise go the Federal Treasury, into a special program 
to research on advanced, ultra-deep drilling technology for the oil and 
gas industry. This transfer isn't a one-time transfer, it's an annual 
transfer that continues every year through the year 2017, at a cost of 
$250 million over five years.
  There are plenty of industries in this country that are hurting, but 
the oil and gas industry is not one of them. It's time, as President 
Obama has said, to end Federal programs that we don't really need. And 
this is one of them. I applaud the decision by the President to propose 
the repeal of the ultra-deepwater drilling program in the budget he 
announced today. It's a decision that's long overdue. That's why I am 
reintroducing this bill--the WEANS Act. I urge my colleagues in joining 
me in ending this unneeded subsidy by supporting the WEANS Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 499

       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 ``Withdraw Energy Addicting 
     New Subsidies Act of 2009'' or the ``WEANS Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ULTRA-DEEPWATER AND UNCONVENTIONAL ONSHORE 
                   NATURAL GAS AND OTHER PETROLEUM RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 16371 et seq.) is repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 500. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish a 
national usury rate for consumer credit transactions; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. As the Congress tries to help Americans overcome the most 
serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, we face two urgent 
yet conflicting priorities. We have to increase demand for American 
products to resuscitate our economy. And we have to reduce the 
financial burden that our children will assume. We need to let 
consumers keep more of their own money without reducing the revenues 
that the government needs to pay for essential services.
  In addition, we need to stop the reckless lending that brought us 
this economic disaster.
  Today, I introduce the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit 
Rates Act to try to get at each of these goals. My bill sets a ceiling 
of 36 percent annualized interest rates on consumer credit.
  Consumers spend approximately $27 billion every year on predatory 
payday loans, high-cost overdraft loans, and hugely expensive refund 
anticipation loans. Imagine if a portion of that $270 billion 10-year 
cost of credit could be redirected towards buying American goods and 
services. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that a strong 
federal usury cap would save low-income borrowers $5 billion each year.
  And, in an era that has called for trillions of taxpayer dollars to 
bail out banks and jumpstart economic demand, this proposal costs the 
taxpayers nothing.
  The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act would 
establish a new Federal annualized fee and interest rate calculation--
the FAIR--and institute a 36-percent cap for all types of consumer 
credit.
  In 2006, Congress enacted a Federal 36 percent annualized usury cap 
for certain credit products marketed to military servicemembers and 
their families, which curbed payday, car title, and tax refund lending 
around military bases. My bill would expand on that premise to include 
all types of credit for all borrowers.
  If a lender can't make money on 36 percent interest, then maybe the 
loan shouldn't be made.
  Although I hope to gain widespread support for this bill from 
responsible lenders, I understand that some of the financial service 
firms in this country will be uneasy with a broad bill establishing a 
high interest rate cap. I hope this bill can open an honest 
conversation about consumer credit rates.
  My opening question in that conversation is this: what services do 
you provide for which you can justify charging your customers more than 
36 percent in annual interest?
  Fifteen States and the District of Columbia have already enacted 
broadly applicable usury laws that protect borrowers from high-cost 
payday loans and many other forms of credit, while 34 States and the 
District of Columbia have limited annual interest rates to 36 percent 
or less for one or more types of consumer credit.
  But there is a problem with this State-by-State approach. Those 
limits can sometimes be evaded by out-of-State lenders that are based 
in States that have weaker usury laws.
  Various Federal and State loopholes allow unscrupulous lenders to 
charge cash-strapped consumers pay 400 percent annual interest for 
payday loans on average, 300 percent annual interest for car title 
loans, up to 3500 percent annual interest for bank overdraft loans, 
between 50 and 500 percent annual interest for loans secured by 
expected tax refunds, and higher than 50 percent annual interest for 
credit cards that charge junk fees.
  Consider 66-year-old Rosa Mobley, who lives on Social Security and a 
small pension.
  The Chicago Tribune reports that Ms. Mobley took out a car title 
loan--a type of payday loan in which the borrowers put up their cars as 
collateral--for $1,000. Ms. Mobley was charged 300 percent interest.
  She wound up paying more than $4,000 over 28 months and at the time 
of the report was struggling just to get by.
  This bill would require that all fees and finance changes be included 
in the new usury rate calculation and would require all lending to 
conform to the limit, thereby eliminating the many loopholes that have 
allowed these predatory practices to flourish.
  It would not preempt stronger State laws, it would allow State 
attorneys general to help enforce this new rate cap, and it would 
provide for strong

[[Page S2571]]

civil penalties to deter lender violations.
  I included in this bill the flexibility for responsible lenders to 
replace payday loans that some borrowers once relied on with reasonably 
priced, small-dollar loan alternatives. The bill allows lenders to 
exceed the 36 percent usury cap for one-time application fees that 
cover the costs of setting up a new customer account and for processing 
costs such as late charges and insufficient funds fees.
  The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act would 
eliminate predatory lenders, but it also would help borrowers make 
smarter choices.
  Congress established the Truth in Lending Act over 40 years ago to 
help consumers compare the costs of borrowing when buying a home, a 
car, or other items by establishing a standard Annual Percentage Rate 
that all lenders should advertise.
  My first mentor in politics, the late Senator Paul Douglas from my 
home State of Illinois, said all the way back in 1963 that too often 
lenders:

     compound the camouflaging of credit by loading on all sorts 
     of extraneous fees, such as exorbitant fees for credit life 
     insurance, excessive fees for credit investigation, and all 
     sorts of loan processing fees which rightfully should be 
     included in the percentage rate statement so that any 
     percentage rate quoted is meaningless and deceptive.

  That was before anyone had ever heard of ``subprime lending.''
  Unfortunately, as the use of credit has exploded and as the 
complexity of the credit products offered by lenders has become mind-
boggling, Congress and the Federal Reserve have taken several actions 
since the passage of Truth in Lending to weaken the APR as a tool for 
comparison shopping. Today, many fees can be excluded from the rate 
that is given to borrowers. The APR no longer gives consumers the 
convenient and accurate information it once did. One payday lender in 
Pennsylvania used the various exclusions to disclose what was really a 
400 percent APR as 6 percent.
  This bill would give consumers a way to accurate compare credit 
options, by requiring that the new FAIR calculation be disclosed both 
for open-end credit plans such as credit cards and for closed-end 
credit such as mortgages and payday loans.
  The bill is supported by 100 groups at the national and local levels, 
including the Consumer Federation of American, the National Consumer 
Law Center, the Center for Responsible Lending, USPIRG, and Consumers 
Union, and I include a copy of their letter of support for the 
Congressional Record.
  As Congress considers some very complicated economic challenges, I 
urge my colleagues to also consider simple solutions. We can help give 
more money to American consumers today without borrowing money that 
must be repaid tomorrow. Let's start by eliminating some of the worst 
abuses in lending by establishing a reasonable fee and interest rate 
cap.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Consumers from 
Unreasonable Credit Rates Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 500

       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 ``Protecting Consumers from 
     Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) attempts have been made to prohibit usurious interest 
     rates in America since colonial times;
       (2) at the State level, 15 states and the District of 
     Columbia have enacted broadly applicable usury laws that 
     protect borrowers from high-cost payday loans and many other 
     forms of credit, while 34 states and the District of Columbia 
     have limited annual interest rates to 36 percent or less for 
     1 or more types of consumer credit;
       (3) at the Federal level, in 2006, Congress enacted a 
     Federal 36 percent annualized usury cap for service members 
     and their families for covered credit products, as defined by 
     the Department of Defense, which curbed payday, car title, 
     and tax refund lending around military bases;
       (4) notwithstanding such attempts to curb predatory 
     lending, high cost lending persists in all 50 States due to 
     loopholes in State laws, safe harbor laws for specific forms 
     of credit, and the exportation of unregulated interest rates 
     permitted by preemption;
       (5) due to the lack of a comprehensive Federal usury cap, 
     consumers annually pay approximately $17,500,000,000 for 
     high-cost overdraft loans, as much as $8,600,000,000 for 
     storefront and online payday loans, and nearly $900,000,000 
     for tax refund anticipation loans;
       (6) cash-strapped consumers pay on average 400 percent 
     annual interest for payday loans, 300 percent annual interest 
     for car title loans, up to 3,500 percent for bank overdraft 
     loans, 50 to 500 percent annual interest for loans secured by 
     expected tax refunds, and higher than 50 percent annual 
     percentage interest for credit cards that charge junk fees;
       (7) a national maximum interest rate that includes all 
     forms of fees and closes all loopholes is necessary to 
     eliminate such predatory lending; and
       (8) alternatives to predatory lending that encourage small 
     dollar loans with minimal or no fees, installment payment 
     schedules, and affordable repayment periods should be 
     encouraged.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE.

       The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 141. MAXIMUM RATES OF INTEREST.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no creditor may make an extension of credit to a 
     consumer with respect to which the fee and interest rate, as 
     defined in subsection (b), exceeds 36 percent.
       ``(b) Fee and Interest Rate Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the fee 
     and interest rate includes all charges payable, directly or 
     indirectly, incident to, ancillary to, or as a condition of 
     the extension of credit, including--
       ``(A) any payment compensating a creditor or prospective 
     creditor for--
       ``(i) an extension of credit or making available a line of 
     credit, such as fees connected with credit extension or 
     availability such as numerical periodic rates, annual fees, 
     cash advance fees, and membership fees; or
       ``(ii) any fees for default or breach by a borrower of a 
     condition upon which credit was extended, such as late fees, 
     creditor-imposed not sufficient funds fees charged when a 
     borrower tenders payment on a debt with a check drawn on 
     insufficient funds, overdraft fees, and over limit fees;
       ``(B) all fees which constitute a finance charge, as 
     defined by rules of the Board in accordance with this title;
       ``(C) credit insurance premiums, whether optional or 
     required; and
       ``(D) all charges and costs for ancillary products sold in 
     connection with or incidental to the credit transaction.
       ``(2) Tolerances.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to a credit obligation that 
     is payable in at least 3 fully amortizing installments over 
     at least 90 days, the term `fee and interest rate' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) application or participation fees that in total do 
     not exceed the greater of $30 or, if there is a limit to the 
     credit line, 5 percent of the credit limit, up to $120, if--

       ``(I) such fees are excludable from the finance charge 
     pursuant to section 106 and regulations issued thereunder;
       ``(II) such fees cover all credit extended or renewed by 
     the creditor for 12 months; and
       ``(III) the minimum amount of credit extended or available 
     on a credit line is equal to $300 or more;

       ``(ii) a late fee charged as authorized by State law and by 
     the agreement that does not exceed either $20 per late 
     payment or $20 per month; or
       ``(iii) a creditor-imposed not sufficient funds fee charged 
     when a borrower tenders payment on a debt with a check drawn 
     on insufficient funds that does not exceed $15.
       ``(B) Adjustments for inflation.--The Board may adjust the 
     amounts of the tolerances established under this paragraph 
     for inflation over time, consistent with the primary goals of 
     protecting consumers and ensuring that the 36 percent fee and 
     interest rate limitation is not circumvented.
       ``(c) Calculations.--
       ``(1) Open end credit plans.--For an open end credit plan--
       ``(A) the fee and interest rate shall be calculated each 
     month, based upon the sum of all fees and finance charges 
     described in subsection (b) charged by the creditor during 
     the preceding 1-year period, divided by the average daily 
     balance; and
       ``(B) if the credit account has been open less than 1 year, 
     the fee and interest rate shall be calculated based upon the 
     total of all fees and finance charges described in subsection 
     (b)(1) charged by the creditor since the plan was opened, 
     divided by the average daily balance, and multiplied by the 
     quotient of 12 divided by the number of full months that the 
     credit plan has been in existence.
       ``(2) Other credit plans.--For purposes of this section, in 
     calculating the fee and interest rate, the Board shall 
     require the method of calculation of annual percentage rate 
     specified in section 107(a)(1), except that the amount 
     referred to in that section 107(a)(1) as the `finance charge' 
     shall include all fees, charges, and payments described in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) Adjustments authorized.--The Board may make 
     adjustments to the calculations in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     but the primary goals of such adjustment shall be to protect 
     consumers and to ensure that the 36 percent

[[Page S2572]]

     fee and interest rate limitation is not circumvented.
       ``(d) Definition of Creditor.--As used in this section, the 
     term `creditor' has the same meaning as in section 702(e) of 
     the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a(e)).
       ``(e) No Exemptions Permitted.--The exemption authority of 
     the Board under section 105 shall not apply to the rates 
     established under this section or the disclosure requirements 
     under section 127(b)(6).
       ``(f) Disclosure of Fee and Interest Rate for Credit Other 
     Than Open End Credit Plans.--In addition to the disclosure 
     requirements under section 127(b)(6), the Board may prescribe 
     regulations requiring disclosure of the fee and interest rate 
     established under this section in addition to or instead of 
     annual percentage rate disclosures otherwise required under 
     this title.
       ``(g) Relation to State Law.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to preempt any provision of State law that 
     provides greater protection to consumers than is provided in 
     this section.
       ``(h) Civil Liability and Enforcement.--In addition to 
     remedies available to the consumer under section 130(a), any 
     payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor, to 
     the extent that such payment is a transaction made in 
     violation of this section, shall be null and void, and not 
     enforceable by any party in any court or alternative dispute 
     resolution forum, and the creditor or any subsequent holder 
     of the obligation shall promptly return to the consumer any 
     principal, interest, charges, and fees, and any security 
     interest associated with such transaction. Notwithstanding 
     any statute of limitations or repose, a violation of this 
     section may be raised as a matter of defense by recoupment or 
     setoff to an action to collect such debt or repossess related 
     security at any time.
       ``(i) Violations.--Any person that violates this section, 
     or seeks to enforce an agreement made in violation of this 
     section, shall be subject to, for each such violation, 1 year 
     in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(1) 3 times the amount of the total accrued debt 
     associated with the subject transaction; or
       ``(2) $50,000.
       ``(j) State Attorneys General.--An action to enforce this 
     section may be brought by the appropriate State attorney 
     general in any United States district court or any other 
     court of competent jurisdiction within 3 years from the date 
     of the violation, and such attorney general may obtain 
     injunctive relief.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF FEE AND INTEREST RATE FOR OPEN END 
                   CREDIT PLANS.

       Section 127(b)(6) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``the total finance charge 
     expressed'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     paragraph and inserting ``the fee and interest rate, 
     displayed as `FAIR', established under section 141.''.

   Diverse National and State Groups Support Durbin/Speier FAIR Bill

                                                February 25, 2009.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Hart Senate Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jackie Speier,
     Cannon House Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Speier: We applaud 
     Senator Durbin and Representative Speier for proposing a 
     measure that would stop a wide range of lending abuses by 
     capping interest rates for consumer credit at 36 percent 
     annually. Cleaning up the finance industry is essential to a 
     sustainable economic recovery.
       The ``Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates 
     Act'' would implement a key promise made by President Obama 
     to extend to all Americans Congressional protection against 
     predatory lending for Service members and their families. By 
     limiting the total cost of consumer credit to 36 percent, 
     Congress will keep billions of dollars in the hands of low 
     and moderate-income consumers, helping to stimulate the 
     economy without costing taxpayers a penny.
       This measure is designed to keep affordable financial 
     products available, as lenders who offer sustainable loans do 
     so at rates well below 36 percent annually. But it would 
     eliminate abuses that rely on high fees, interest and other 
     devices to charge extremely high annual rates--some 400 
     percent and higher--to trap consumers in debt they cannot 
     afford to pay off.
       Protections that once curbed abusive lending in America 
     have been shredded, and consumers are paying astronomical 
     rates for credit, especially those who have the fewest 
     resources. Payday loans cost 400 percent APR or higher; car 
     title loans cost 300 percent APR and put car ownership at 
     risk; loans secured by expected tax refunds cost 50 to 500 
     percent APR; and credit card fees and interest can combine to 
     produce triple-digit rates. Bank overdraft loans can cost 
     quadruple digit interest rates. These extremely expensive 
     credit products drain billions from families who struggle to 
     make ends meet, diminishing their ability to purchase 
     products and services that would boost the economy.
       The ability of states to enact meaningful reforms on credit 
     card and bank overdraft practices has been severely 
     restricted as a result of federal preemption. Banks are now 
     permitted to locate in a state without consumer protections 
     and then engage in unregulated lending in the other forty-
     nine states, which are powerless to protect their citizens 
     against high cost credit cards and tax refund anticipation 
     loans. State usury caps have been riddled with loopholes and 
     exceptions, leaving consumers in thirty-five states exposed 
     to outrageously expensive payday loans.
       The FAIR (Fees and Interest Rate) cap on consumer credit is 
     set high enough not to hamper mainstream responsible lending. 
     A 36 percent rate cap is twice the limit for federally-
     chartered credit unions and enables credit to be responsibly 
     extended to consumers with less than perfect credit ratings. 
     This is the rate cap enacted by Congress through the Military 
     Lending Act and is the limit typically used in state small 
     loan laws. The FAIR cap will be the maximum amount lenders 
     can charge, but states will be able to set lower rate caps to 
     protect their citizens, such as New York's 25 percent 
     criminal cap and Arkansas's constitutional cap.
       We urge quick action to implement the FAIR cap to stop 
     usurious credit rates, to protect struggling consumers, and 
     to put all lenders under the same set of protections.
           Sincerely,
       Jean Ann Fox, Consumer Federation of America.
       Pam Banks, Consumers Union.
       Lauren Saunders, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of 
     its low income clients).
       Edmund Mierzwinski, U. S. Public Interest Research Group.
       Michael Calhoun, Center for Responsible Lending.
       David Berenbaum, National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
       Hilary O. Shelton, NAACP.
       Linda Sherry, Consumer Action.
       Sally Greenberg, National Consumers League.
       Don Mathis, Community Action Partnership.
       Jim Campen, Americans For Fairness in Lending.
       Maude Hurd, Association of Community Organizations for 
     Reform Now (ACORN).
       George Goehl, National Training and Information Center.
       Ira Rheingold, National Association of Consumer Advocates 
     (NACA).
       Jerily DeCoteau, First Nations Development Institute.
       Joanna Donohoe, Oweesta Corporation.
       Lisa Rice, National Fair Housing Alliance.
       Rosemary Shahan, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
       Steve Hitov, National Health Law Program (NHeLP).
       Jacqueline Johnson Pata, National Congress of American 
     Indians.
       Joe Rich, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.


                          State Organizations

       Shay Farley, Alabama Appleseed.
       Barbara Williams, Alaska Injured Workers Alliance Research 
     and Development Corp.
       Diane E. Brown, Arizona Public Interest Research Group.
       Leslie Kyman Cooper, Arizona Consumers Council.
       Al Sterman, Democratic Processes Center, Arizona.
       Karin Uhlich, Southwest Center for Economic Integrity, 
     Arizona.
       H.C. ``Hank'' Klein, Arkansans Against Abusive Payday 
     Lending, Arkansas.
       Jim Bliesner, San Diego City/County Reinvestment Task 
     Force, California.
       Betsy Handler, Inner City Law Center, Los Angeles, 
     California.
       Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of California.
       Kimberly Jones and Liana Molina, California Reinvestment 
     Coalition.
       Kyra Kazantzis, Public Interest Law Firm, Fair Housing Law 
     Project, San Jose, CA
       M. Stacey Hawver, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, 
     CA.
       Raphael L. Podolsky, Legal Assistance Resource Center of 
     Connecticut, Inc. Lynn Drysdale, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, 
     Inc., Florida.
       Bill Newton, Florida Consumer Action Network.
       Sally G. Schmidt, Florida Equal Justice Center.
       Victor Geminani, Lawyers for Equal Justice, Hawaii.
       Don Carlson, Central Illinois Organizing Project, Illinois.
       Lynda DeLaforgue and William McNary, Citizen Action/
     Illinois.
       Rose Mary Meyer, Project IRENE, Illinois.
       Dory Rand, Woodstock Institute, Illinois.
       Madeline Talbott, Action Now, Illinois.
       Brian C. White, Lakeside Community Development Corporation, 
     Illinois.
       Victor Elias, Child and Family Policy Center and Iowa 
     Coalition Against Abusive Lending, Iowa.
       Larry M. McGuire, Minister, Community of Christ and Inter-
     Religious Council of Linn County, Iowa.
       Lana L. Ross, Iowa Community Action Association.
       Jason Selmon, Sunflower Community Action, Kansas.
       Terry Brooks, Kentucky Youth Advocates.
       Dana Jackson, Making Connections Network, Louisville, 
     Kentucky.
       Melissa Fry Konty, Mountain Association for Community 
     Economic Development, Kentucky.
       Anne Marie Regan and Rich Seckel, Kentucky Equal Justice 
     Center.
       Amy Shir, Kentucky Asset Building Coalition.
       Debra Gardner, Public Justice Center, Maryland.
       Charles Shafer, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.

[[Page S2573]]

       Debra Fastino, The Coalition for Social Justice, 
     Massachusetts.
       Jim Breslauer, Neighborhood Legal Services, Lawrence, 
     Massachusetts.
       Caroline Murray, Alliance to Develop Power/ADP Worker 
     Center, Massachusetts Paheadra B. Robinson, Mississippi 
     Center for Justice.
       Robin Acree, GRO-Grassroots Organizing, Missouri.
       Mike Cherry, Consumer Credit Counseling Service, Missouri.
       Mike Ferry, Gateway Legal Services, Inc., Missouri, 
     Arkansas, and Illinois.
       Linda Gryczan, Montana Business and Professional Women, 
     Montana Women's Lobby
       Linda E. Reed, Montana Community Foundation.
       Michele Johnson, Consumer Credit Counseling Service, Nevada 
     and Utah
       Dan Wulz, Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada.
       Paula J. O'Brien, New York State Consumer Protection Board.
       Josh Zinner and Sarah Ludwig, Neighborhood Economic 
     Development Advocacy Project, New York.
       Al Ripley, North Carolina Justice Center.
       Jeffrey D. Dillman, Housing Research and Advocacy Center, 
     Ohio.
       Bill Faith, Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio.
       Jim McCarthy, Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc., Ohio.
       David Rothstein, PolicyMatters, Ohio.
       Jeff Shuman, Deep Fork Community Action, Oklahoma.
       Linda Burgin, SEIU Local 503, Oregon.
       Linda Burgin, SEIU Oregon State Council.
       Jerry Cohen, AARP Oregon.
       Alice Dale, SEIU Local 49, Oregon.
       Angela Martin, Our Oregon.
       Kerry Smith, Community Legal Services, Pennsylvania.
       Sue Berkowitz, South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice 
     Center.
       Rena Eller, Senior Citizens of Hendersonville, Inc.
       Dana M. Given, United Way of Sumner County, Tennessee.
       Corky Neale, RISE Foundation and Memphis Responsible 
     Lending Collaborative, TN.
       Karen Pershing, United Way of Greater Knoxville, Tennessee.
       Sherry Tolli, Home Safe of Sumner, Wilson and Robertson 
     Counties, Inc., Tennessee.
       Carlos Gallinar, La Fe Community Development Corporation, 
     El Paso, Texas.
       Regina Harvey, Dominion Financial Management, Smyrna, 
     Texas.
       Linda Hilton, Coalition of Religious Communities, Utah.
       Janice ``Jay'' Johnson, Virginia Organizing Project.
       Irene E. Leech, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.
       LaTonya Reed and C. Douglas Smith, Virginia Interfaith 
     Center.
       Ward Scull and Mike Lane, Virginians against Payday 
     Lending.
       James W. Speer, Virginia Poverty Law Center.
       Dana Wiggins, Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible 
     Lending.
       Maya Baxter, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Washington.
       John R. Jones, Washington ACORN.
       Bruce Neas, Columbia Legal Services, Washington, on behalf 
     of clients.
       Will Pittz, Washington Community Action Network.

                          ____________________