[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 28, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8198-S8203]
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. Reed):
  S. 1523. A Bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
grant program to provide supportive services in permanent supportive 
housing for chronically homeless individuals and families, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Burr, in 
reintroducing the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act, 
SELHA.
  It is estimated that between 2.5 and 3.5 million Americans experience 
a period of homelessness in a given year. With the current economy, 
with more Americans losing their jobs and their homes, it is likely 
that the total has risen. While the majority of these individuals will 
only be homeless for a brief period of time, a growing segment is 
experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. Roughly 124,000 
Americans fall under the category of chronically homeless. In my state 
of Rhode Island, approximately ten percent of homeless individuals 
cycle in and out of homelessness.
  In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services 
Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report that defined the issues and 
challenges facing the chronically homeless and developed a 
comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and 
treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside 
of mainstream support programs.
  The same year, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health also 
recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate 
access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who 
are chronically homeless. Affordable housing, alone, is not enough for 
many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This population also 
needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support services to sustain 
them in housing.
  Since the Commission made the recommendations, approximately 60,000 
units of permanent supportive housing have been developed and currently 
another 30,000 are under development. Numerous studies conducted by 
cities and states across the country demonstrate that supportive 
housing can save local governments between $15,000 and $30,000 that 
would otherwise be spent in publicly funded shelters, hospitals--
including VA hospitals--and prisons. The savings nearly pays for the 
cost of supportive housing and the outcome is much different; indeed it 
is much improved. Permanent supportive housing results in better mental 
and physical health, employment, greater income, fewer arrests, better 
progress toward recovery, self sufficiency, and less homelessness.
  However, funding for supportive services to complement these housing 
efforts continues to be an issue. The legislation we are introducing 
today is critical to the development and implementation of more 
effective strategies to combat chronic homelessness through improved 
service delivery and coordination across federal agencies serving this 
population. It directs the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, SAMHSA, to coordinate its Federal efforts with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, other Federal departments 
that provide supportive housing, and various agencies within HHS that 
provide supportive services.
  This bipartisan measure is designed to help improve coordination and 
ensure access to the range of supportive services that the growing 
number of chronically homeless Americans need to get back on their 
feet. Our bill brings together permanent supportive housing and 
services, the essential tools to enable these individuals to begin to 
take the steps necessary to once again become productive and active 
members of our communities.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues toward passage of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Corker, 
        Mr. Risch, and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 1524. A bill to strengthen the capacity, transparency, and 
accountability of United States foreign assistance programs to 
effectively adapt and respond to new challenges of the 21st century, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the past 6 months, the administration 
has been busy laying the groundwork for a new development agenda.
  First, the President issued a bold 2010 international affairs budget 
that significantly increases funding for vital programs in Pakistan and 
Afghanistan, begins to rebuild our diplomatic and development capacity, 
and renews our commitment to essential programs from education to HIV/
AIDS and hunger.
  Then, earlier this month, President Obama and other G8 leaders 
announced a $20 billion food security partnership to provide small 
farmers in poor countries with the seeds, fertilizers, and equipment 
they need to break a decades-long cycle of hunger, malnutrition and 
dependency. Finally, the State Department unveiled plans for a 
``Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,'' a comprehensive 
assessment designed to improve policy, strategy, and planning at the 
State Department.
  While we are still awaiting a nominee to head the U.S. Agency for 
International Development I am confident that a name will soon be 
forthcoming.
  These are welcome changes that demonstrate this Administration's 
commitment to a vigorous reform process and a bold development plan. 
Congress will be a strong partner in those efforts--providing the 
resources, legislation, and authorities to ensure that our development 
programs are funded and designed to meet our priorities.
  While there is some debate on what form foreign aid reform should 
take, there is a broad consensus in the development community about why 
reform matters.

[[Page S8199]]

  Experts agree that the strength of our development programs is 
directly linked to success or failure in front-line states like 
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  They agree that USAID is more critical to achieving our foreign 
policy objectives than ever before--yet it lacks the tools, capacity 
and expertise to fulfill its mission.
  They agree that too often decision-makers lack basic information 
about the actual impact of our development programs.
  They also agree that excessive bureaucracy and regulations and 
fragmented coordination are hampering our efforts to swiftly and 
effectively deliver assistance.
  And they agree that even as we plan for broad, fundamental reform, 
there are many steps we can take in the interim to dramatically improve 
the effectiveness of our foreign aid efforts.
  We assembled a small bipartisan Senate working group to formulate 
legislation that makes short-term improvements while setting the stage 
for longer-term reform. Senators Lugar, Menendez, Corker and I have 
been developing initial reform legislation that we believe goes a long 
way towards improving our short-term capacity to deliver foreign aid in 
a more accountable, thoughtful and strategic manner.
  One provision in the bill that we believe is particularly important 
establishes an independent evaluation group, based in the executive 
branch, to measure and evaluate the impact and results of all U.S. 
foreign aid programs, across all departments and agencies. This new 
institution--the Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign 
Assistance--can address a fundamental knowledge gap in our foreign aid 
programs--quite simply, it will help us understand which programs work, 
which do not, and why.
  I want to emphasize, this legislation only represents the first step 
in a longer reform process. But we believe it sends an important 
bipartisan signal that foreign aid reform will be a priority for this 
committee in the years ahead. I am pleased that Senators Risch and 
Cardin will join as original cosponsors to the bill.
  When John F. Kennedy spoke at the founding of USAID, in 1961, he 
articulated a basic truth about our foreign policy. We cannot escape 
our moral obligation to be a wise leader in the community of free 
nations. Kennedy warned that--``To fail to meet those obligations now 
would be disastrous; and, in the long run, more expensive. For 
widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political 
and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of 
totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own 
security would be endangered and our prosperity imperiled.''
  Just substitute violent extremism for totalitarianism and the quote 
is as accurate today as it was then. Just as we did in Marshall's time 
and Kennedy's time, America today has a chance to return to a foreign 
policy that is not just seen by people everywhere, but felt and lived, 
one that translates our promises into real value and real progress on 
the ground--one that improves people's daily lives, inspires them, and 
earns their respect.
  The good news is that, as we rebuild our civilian institutions, there 
will so many chances to lead in the process. We are living in a moment 
of volatility, but also--emphatically--a moment of possibility.
  Infant mortality rates dropped by 27 percent worldwide since 1990. By 
2015, let us cut under-five mortality by 2/3. Life expectancy is eight 
years higher than it was in 1990--but we can do better by cutting 
hunger and poverty in half and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDs, 
malaria and other major diseases. Primary school enrollment has 
increased by 10 percent--it is time we made it universal. While we are 
at it, let us eliminate gender disparity in education once and for all.
  History teaches us that America is safest and strongest when we 
understand that our security will not be protected by military means 
alone. It must be protected as well by our generosity, by our example, 
by powerful outreach, and by instilling a palpable sense in the people 
of the world that we understand--and share their destiny. That has 
always inspired people, and it always will. It undercuts our enemies, 
it empowers our friends--and it keeps us safer.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
John Kerry, in introducing the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and 
Accountability Act of 2009. Our colleagues, Senators Corker, Menendez, 
Risch, and Cardin, join us in this effort as original cosponsors.
  The role of foreign assistance in achieving U.S. foreign policy 
objectives has come into sharper focus since 2001. President Bush 
elevated development as a third pillar of the U.S. National Security 
Strategy. President Obama pledged to double foreign assistance, and 
announced new initiatives on global food security and health. Secretary 
Clinton announced a quadrennial review of diplomacy and development. 
These initiatives are likely to have far reaching implications for 
foreign assistance policy and organization.
  For development to play its full role in our national security 
structure, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, must 
be a strong agency with the resources to accomplish the missions we 
give it. Earlier this month, Secretary Clinton stated: ``I want USAID 
to be seen as the premier development agency in the world, both 
governmental and NGO. I want people coming here to consult with us 
about the best way to do anything having to do with development.'' I 
share the sentiments expressed by Secretary Clinton, and I have 
confidence in the extraordinary development expertise housed at USAID.
  But during the last two decades, decision-makers have not made it 
easy for USAID to perform its vital function. Even as we have 
rediscovered the importance of foreign assistance, we find ourselves 
with a frail foundation to support a robust development strategy. We 
have increased funds for development and elevated its priority, while 
allowing USAID to atrophy. Many new programs have been located outside 
USAID with roughly two dozen departments and agencies having taken over 
some aspects of foreign assistance, including the Department of 
Defense. Each of these agencies naturally considers itself the lead 
agency in its sector, provoking competition among agencies rather than 
coordination and coherence. We do not really know whether these 
programs are complementary or working at cross-purposes.
  USAID's staffing and expertise have declined markedly since the 
1980s. There are only five engineers left; 23 education officers are 
tasked with overseeing different programs in 84 countries. Decisions to 
reorganize in pursuit of better coordination between the Department of 
State and USAID resulted in the latter's loss of evaluation, budget, 
and policy capacity. Much of the work of running America's development 
programs is now farmed out to private contractors.
  I believe the starting point for any future design of our assistance 
programs and organization should not be the status quo, but rather the 
period in which we had a well-functioning and well-resourced aid 
agency. To be a full partner in support of foreign policy objectives, 
USAID must have the capacity to participate in policy, planning, and 
budgeting. The migration of these functions to the State Department has 
fed the impression that an independent aid agency no longer exists.
  It the administration pursues the goal of doubling foreign assistance 
over time, it is crucial that Congress has confidence that these funds 
will be used efficiently. USAID must have the capacity to evaluate 
programs and disseminate information about best practices and methods 
and it must have a central role in development policy decisions.
  The legislation that we introduce today promotes capacity, 
accountability, and transparency in U.S. foreign assistance programs. 
It has received strong initial support from outside groups led by the 
Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. There are three deficiencies we 
are trying to address.
  First, the evaluation of assistance programs and the dissemination of 
knowledge have deteriorated in the last couple of decades. While USAID 
was a respected voice in this regard during the 1980s, its evaluation 
capacity has been allowed to wither. The bill strengthens USAID's 
monitoring and

[[Page S8200]]

evaluation capacity with the creation of an internal evaluation and 
knowledge center. The bill also re-establishes a policy and planning 
bureau. It is crucial that USAID be able to fully partner with the 
State Department in decisions relating to development.
  Second, U.S. foreign assistance programs are littered among some two 
dozen agencies with little or no coordination. We do not have adequate 
knowledge of whether programs are complementary or working at cross-
purposes. The bill requires all government agencies with a foreign 
assistance role to make information about its activities publicly 
available in a timely fashion. It designates the USAID Mission Director 
as responsible for coordinating all development and humanitarian 
assistance in-country. It creates an independent evaluation and 
research organization that can analyze and evaluate foreign assistance 
programs across government.
  Third, staffing and expertise at USAID have declined since the early 
1990s, even as funding for foreign assistance programs has increased. 
This decline in capacity has resulted in other agencies stepping in to 
fill the gap. While Congress has begun to provide the necessary 
resources to rebuild this capacity, the agency does not have a human 
resources strategy to guide hiring and deployment decisions. The bill 
would require such a strategy and a high-level task force to advise on 
critical personnel issues. The bill also encourages increased training 
and inter-agency rotations to build expertise and effectiveness.
  It is especially important that Congress weigh in on this issue 
because the Administration has yet to appoint a USAID Administrator or 
fill any confirmable positions in the agency. Without an Administrator 
in place, USAID is likely to have less of a role in the current State 
Department review than it should have. The State Department review 
process should include strong voices advocating for an independent aid 
agency.
  Both Congress and the State Department should be offering proposals 
on how to improve development assistance. Our legislation does not rule 
out any options that the State Department may propose as a result of 
its review. But ultimately, Congress will have to make decisions on 
resources for development programs. Given budget constraints, it is 
essential that Congress has confidence in how development resources are 
spent. Building capacity at USAID will be an important part of this 
calculation.
  The issues that we face today--from chronic poverty and hunger to 
violent acts of terrorism--require that we work seamlessly toward 
identifiable goals. I look forward to working with colleagues to 
improve and support the development mission that benefits our long-term 
security.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my 
colleagues Senators Kerry, Lugar, and Corker, legislation that will 
help strengthen the foreign assistance efforts of the United States. We 
have put together a piece of legislation that helps move our collective 
foreign assistance efforts in the right direction.
  I am pleased that we have worked very closely and in a bipartisan 
fashion on this legislation and I want to thank my colleagues for their 
work. Foreign assistance is something that is of great interest to many 
members of the Foreign Relations Committee. While we may disagree on 
the overall resources that should be devoted to development assistance, 
I think we all agree that the resources we do provide should be used in 
the best way possible.
  I also want to thank the broader community of people who have been 
supportive of these efforts for years. I cannot tell you how many 
letters from people in New Jersey and from around the country I have 
received on these issues. These individuals, and the groups who help 
advocate for these issues are an important voice in the process.
  President Obama has pledged to double foreign assistance by 2012. In 
this context, it is now more important than ever for the Congress to 
know which U.S. Government programs are the best investments. Right 
now, we have too little evidence that is objective and independent 
about which U.S. Government Agencies should have their budgets 
increased and which should be held constant or decreased. This 
legislation will help provide a more objective basis for this kind of 
decisionmaking. It will help both the Congress and the administration 
to make smarter, more analytical decisions about which agencies should 
carry out what programs, and help build more rigorous analysis across 
U.S. Government programs that may be working on similar issues.
  Foreign assistance is not just an issue of morality or an issue that 
is driven by a sense of doing what is right for the most 
disenfranchised around the world--these issues are directly in our 
national interests and our national security interests. Every time we 
provide credit to a farmer who is displaced or training to a woman who 
wants to run a business out of her home, we are making inroads to the 
bread and butter issues that people care about. When we provide an 
effective alternative to illicit economic activity, we are dealing a 
blow against drugs coming to the streets of New Jersey, and helping to 
build the institutions around the world that will provide the framework 
for stable and prosperous societies. We all want to live in a community 
where we can walk freely without fear of persecution, and without fear 
of our personal safety. No matter where you come from, these are a 
basic set of principles that resonate with all of us.

  Congress needs to see results, the American people need to see 
results, and so do the millions of people around the world whose lives 
literally depend on our ability to carry out these programs in the 
smartest way possible. This is why we have included an independent 
monitoring mechanism to evaluate the impact of our foreign assistance 
programs. It's one thing to say that we handed out 500 textbooks or 
trained 200 teachers, but it's far different to say that we improved 
the aptitude of school children and that these improvements help 
connect them to meaningful employment, which raised their household 
income, which allowed them to eat better, access medical services, and 
so on . . . it's the difference between outputs and outcomes that we 
are trying to get at with the independent evaluation unit, as outlined 
in the legislation we are introducing today.
  I have long believed that foreign assistance is a critical part of 
our overall engagement overseas and I have been a consistent advocate 
of stepping up our efforts in this area. In recent years, I have 
focused on building up the United States Agency for International 
Development, USAID, from the inside out--I have called for building-up 
the staff of USAID in a coherent and strategic manner--this bill will 
help do that.
  Now that USAID is working alongside the Department of Defense in 
places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and immersed in complex situations 
like those in Pakistan, Sudan, or Sri Lanka, we need an agency that is 
nimble, responsive, and ahead of the curve. From staffing, resources, 
and training, our development tools need to be, at the very least at 
par, if not ahead of our diplomatic and defense efforts.
  One way to start us along this path is to focus on USAID's 
leadership. It needs credible and high-profile leadership that can work 
in partnership with the Congress, the Department of State, the 
Department of Defense, and the National Security Council. The 
``development voice'' in our Government needs to be a ``heavyweight 
voice'' that commands respect both in Washington and around the world.
  I believe USAID needs to take back resources and programs that have 
slowly been moved over to the Department of Defense. Having the 
Department of State or the Department of Defense control development 
strategy and resources, with USAID simply serving as an implementing 
agency, has caused confusion and ambiguity. We ask our military to plan 
and execute a lot of missions; development should not be one of them. 
Civilian resources should be appropriated to civilian agencies.
  Staff at USAID needs to be rebuilt--not just with more people, but we 
need to make sure we have the right people and make sure we are 
attracting and retaining the best possible candidates. This bill will 
help us get there with the comprehensive human resource strategy that 
is mandated for human resources. We need to build up our foreign 
assistance programs not just where they used to be, but to where they 
need to be.

[[Page S8201]]

  I look forward to continuing our work on these programs. This 
legislation is a start, but there is much more work to be done. Let me 
be clear--this bill, combined with additional resources is not going to 
fix everything--foreign assistance has its limits. However, I believe 
we have not yet approached this limit. More resources, and better-spent 
resources, combined with active diplomatic and economic engagement will 
help build the institutions that will create more stable political, 
social, and economic systems.
  Only until we recognize that the success of those systems is deeply 
connected to the success of our own, will we begin to adequately 
address the joint challenges that threaten our national security, our 
economy, our way of life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1526. A bill to establish and clarify that Congress does not 
authorize persons convicted of dangerous crimes in foreign courts to 
freely possess firearms in the United States; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No 
Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009. This bill would close a 
loophole that currently exists in law, by ensuring that people 
convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence 
cannot possess firearms. I imagine that most Americans may be 
surprised--as I was--to learn that foreign felons actually have greater 
gun rights than American citizens convicted of felonies and crimes of 
domestic violence in our own courts.
  In 1968, Congress passed the landmark Gun Control Act, ensuring that 
it was illegal for felons to possess firearms. I have been working 
since 1994 to build upon that legacy and protect American families from 
senseless gun violence.
  Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court created a gaping loophole in 
this longstanding felon-in-possession law. In the case of Small v. 
United States, a majority of the Court held that foreign felony is not 
a bar to gun possession when those felons come to the U.S.
  At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling 
could lead to unintended consequences. Justice Clarence Thomas noted in 
his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted 
overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other 
dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.''
  The majority of the Court identified a fundamental flaw in the Gun 
Control Act of 1968. Simply put, Congress was not clear enough. 
Although the law states that a person convicted of a felony ``in any 
court'' could not possess a firearm, the Court said that the phrase, 
``any court,'' applied only to American courts.
  The federal felon-in-possession laws outlined in the Gun Control Act 
of 1968 has been applied to foreign felons from 1968 until the Small 
decision in 2005. However, the Court found these arguments 
unpersuasive.
  In their dissent, Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy accused the 
majority of creating a novel legal construction that would ``wreak 
havoc'' with established rules of extraterritorial construction. But 
whatever we may think of the Court's legal analysis, there is no doubt 
that the Small decision is now the law of the land.
  We must now make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and 
the only way to do that is to pass the No Firearms for Foreign Fellons 
Act of 2009. The bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under 
this bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is amended to ensure that 
convictions in foreign courts are included. Similar changes would be 
made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are 
references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law''--the 
bill would expand these terms to include convictions for felony 
offenses committed abroad.
  In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone is 
convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified 
him from possessing a firearm in the U.S. the same laws relating to gun 
possession would be applied.
  As introduced, the only exception would involve a conviction in a 
foreign court that was invalid. In that specific situation, this bill 
would allow a person convicted in a foreign court to challenge its 
validity. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a 
``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the 
foreign conviction either: resulted from a denial of fundamental 
fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United 
States, or, if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based 
would be legal if committed in the U.S.
  I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill 
does take them into account, and will provide a complete defense to 
anyone with an invalid foreign conviction under these specific 
circumstances.
  The need for action is clear. In 2001, U.S. law enforcement outfitted 
in bullet proof vests raided the New York City hotel room of Rohan 
Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 different firearms, had an extensive 
criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such 
as assault and use of deadly weapon. He was known to law enforcement as 
``armed and dangerous'' and they rightfully took all of the necessary 
precautions to protect themselves. However, because all of his crimes 
had occurred in Canada, his felon-in-possession of a firearm charge was 
eventually thrown out of court. This is a direct result of the Supreme 
Court case and illustrates a very dangerous loophole in our criminal 
justice system.
  What we need to do as an institution is clear. We cannot keep in 
place a policy that allows felons convicted overseas to possess 
firearms. It simply makes no sense. In a country filled with senseless 
gun violence, we cannot continue to give foreign-convicted murderers, 
rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to buy firearms and U.S. 
assault weapons in the U.S. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Recordd, as follows:

                                S. 1526

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No Firearms for Foreign 
     Felons Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Courts.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) The term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or 
     foreign court.''.
       (b) Exclusion of Certain Felonies.--Section 921(a)(20) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``any Federal or State 
     offenses'' and inserting ``any Federal, State, or foreign 
     offenses'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``any State offense 
     classified by the laws of the State'' and inserting ``any 
     State or foreign offense classified by the laws of that 
     jurisdiction''; and
       (3) in the matter following subparagraph (B), in the first 
     sentence, by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a 
     conviction of such a crime if the convicted person 
     establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a 
     denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process 
     if committed in the United States or from conduct that would 
     be legal if committed in the United States''.
       (c) Domestic Violence Crimes.--Section 921(a)(33) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``if the 
     conviction has'' and inserting the following: ``if the 
     conviction--
       ``(I) occurred in a foreign jurisdiction and the convicted 
     person establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from 
     a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due 
     process if committed in the United States or from conduct 
     that would be legal if committed in the United States; or
       ``(II) has''.

     SEC. 3. PENALTIES.

       Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an offense under State law'' and 
     inserting ``an offense under State or foreign law''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a 
     conviction of such a crime if the convicted person 
     establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a 
     denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process 
     if committed in the United States or from conduct that would 
     be legal if committed in the United States''.

[[Page S8202]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL, of New Mexico.
  S. 1527. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act to authorize the Secretary of 
Agriculture to order the recall of meat and poultry that is 
adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act, to grant the Secretary of 
Agriculture the authority to order the recall of meat and poultry that 
is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe.
  Sadly, and in some cases tragically, in recent years recalls of 
unsafe food products has seemingly become a regular occurrence in our 
Nation. Last week, a Denver-based grocery chain recalled 466,236 pounds 
of ground beef products that were distributed to stores in Colorado, 
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and my State of New Mexico. 
The tainted meat is blamed for fourteen cases of salmonella and 6 
hospitalizations.
  Last year, the USDA requested a recall of 143 million pounds of beef 
from a slaughterhouse that was being investigated for unsafe practices. 
In this instance, like most, the recalled beef had been distributed 
throughout the country, including to my state of New Mexico where the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Foods Program had sent 3,000 
cases of the questionable beef to the state's Human Services Department 
to be distributed to school lunch programs. Luckily, most of the beef 
was found before it was served, but putting New Mexico's children at 
such a risk is clearly unacceptable.
  The number of people affected annually from ingesting tainted meat 
and poultry products illuminates this proposition: 5,000 people die 
from food-borne illnesses each year; nearly 76 million people get sick 
annually from eating tainted food, of these individuals, 325,000 
require hospitalization.
  Shockingly, the USDA does not have the authority to issue mandatory 
recalls of tainted meat and poultry products. Complying with agency 
recalls, therefore, is at the industry's discretion. The meat industry 
says that it has never failed to cooperate with a recall request from 
the USDA, rendering mandatory recalls of tainted meat unnecessary. 
However, when the USDA asks for a recall, a negotiation process ensues 
between the agency and the industry. Meanwhile, thousands of people are 
at risk of eating the potentially harmful meat in the marketplace 
during the ongoing negotiations.
  It is the responsibility of the USDA to see that the poultry and 
meatpacking industry produces only safe meat products. It is the right 
of American consumers to feel safe purchasing the meat sold in their 
grocery stores. And it is the right of our cattle producers to know 
that the beef they produce is being handled properly and sent into the 
market safely.
  My bill would finally give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to 
ensure that the meat in our Nation's markets is clean and safe.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1528. A bill to establish a Foreign Intelligence and Information 
Commission and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today 
would establish an independent, bipartisan Foreign Intelligence and 
Information Commission to significantly reform and improve our 
intelligence capabilities. On July 16, the bill was approved, on a 
bipartisan basis, by the Senate Intelligence Committee as an amendment 
to the Fiscal Year 2010 Intelligence Authorization bill. The bill is 
similar to the one I introduced in the last Congress with Senator 
Hagel, which also had bipartisan support in the Intelligence Committee, 
and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon become law. The New 
York Times has also expressed its support for the commission.
  The work of this commission is critical to our national security. For 
years, our intelligence officials have acknowledged that we lack 
adequate coverage around the world and that we have gaps in our ability 
to anticipate threats and crises before they emerge. The 2006 Annual 
Report of the Intelligence Community described how current crises 
divert resources from emerging and strategic issues. In 2007, the 
Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection testified that 
we need to ``pay attention to places that we are not.'' In 2008, the 
DNI testified that current crisis support ``takes a disproportionate 
share'' of intelligence resources over emerging and strategic issues. 
Earlier this year, during his confirmation process, the current CIA 
Director expressed his concern about the broad set of issues to which 
insufficient resources are being devoted. The problem, in other words, 
is not new, nor is it unique to any administration. It is systematic 
and it results from structural problems in how we develop priorities 
and allocate resources.
  These structural problems afflict the Intelligence Community, but 
they are also much broader. Around the world, information our 
government needs to inform our foreign policy and protect our country 
is obtained openly by State Department officials. Yet there is no 
interagency strategy that integrates the capabilities of our diplomats 
and other embassy personnel with the activities of our clandestine 
collectors. The result is big gaps in what we know about the world--
gaps that don't necessarily require more spying.
  This information pertains to instability and civil conflict, threats 
to democratic institutions, human rights abuses and corruption, and 
whether we can count on the support of a country for our policies. This 
information is also directly related to the threat from al Qaeda, its 
affiliates and other terrorist organizations. The 9/11 Commission 
recommended that our government identify and prioritize actual or 
potential terrorist sanctuaries. Yet, as the Director of the National 
Counterterrorism Center testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
``much of the information about the instability that can lead to safe 
havens or ideological radicalization comes not from covert collection 
but from open collection, best done by Foreign Service Officers.'' The 
solution, then, is to ensure that, if State Department or other U.S. 
officials are best suited to gather this kind of critical information, 
they have the capabilities and resources to do so.

  At the core of the commission's mandate is the need for an 
interagency strategy that asks and answers four key questions: ``What 
is it that the U.S. Government needs to know?'' ``How do we best 
anticipate threats and crises around the world, before they emerge?'' 
``Who in our government, within and outside of the Intelligence 
Community, is best equipped to get this information, report on it, and 
analyze it?'' ``And how do we develop missions and provide resources so 
that we are using all of our capabilities on behalf of our national 
security?'' The commission will provide recommendations on how the 
government can and should develop this strategy and whether new 
legislation is needed to clarify the authority of existing executive 
branch entities or create a new one. And it will provide 
recommendations on how to ensure that the budget process reflects the 
best and most efficient means to collect, report on and analyze 
intelligence and information, rather than the influence of individual 
bureaucracies.
  The reform recommendations made by this commission will provide a 
critical and welcome boost to everyone, in the executive branch and in 
Congress, responsible for defending our national security. The 
Intelligence Community, as its own leadership has attested, needs 
guidance if it is to reprioritize global coverage and long-term 
threats. It also needs help in areas that need not be its top 
priorities: if State Department or other U.S. officials outside the 
Intelligence Community are best equipped to obtain certain information 
and are given sufficient resources, the IC can focus on areas where 
clandestine collection is most needed. The State Department will 
benefit from an interagency process that recognizes the critical 
reporting capabilities of the diplomatic service and allocates 
resources accordingly. The President will be provided with 
recommendations on interagency reforms that extend beyond the purview 
of any one department or agency.
  Implementation of the commission's recommendations will allow the 
congressional intelligence and foreign relations committees to conduct 
oversight of the Intelligence Community and the State Department in the 
context of a clearly defined strategy. The

[[Page S8203]]

budget committees and the appropriators as well as authorizers will 
have an interagency strategy that explains the rationale for the 
President's budget request. Congress as a whole will be provided 
recommendations on whether new legislation is needed to reform the 
process.
  This is not just a step toward good governance. It will ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently and effectively. Most of 
all, it will make us safer. This bill is not partisan, and it has 
nothing to do with who is in the White House. The commission will not 
investigate anyone, nor cast blame for long-standing structural 
problems. It seeks only to identify the reforms still needed and to 
provide recommendations, to the executive branch and to Congress, on 
how to achieve them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Webb, and Mr. 
        Warner):
  S.J. Res. 19. A joint resolution granting the consent and approval of 
Congress to amendments made by the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, and the District of Columbia to the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact; considered and passed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 19

       Whereas Congress in title VI of the Passenger Rail 
     Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (section 601, Public 
     Law 110-432) authorized the Secretary of Transportation to 
     make grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority subject to certain conditions, including that no 
     amounts may be provided until specified amendments to the 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact have 
     taken effect;
       Whereas legislation enacted by the State of Maryland 
     (Chapter 111, 2009 Laws of the Maryland General Assembly), 
     the Commonwealth of Virginia (Chapter 771, 2009 Acts of 
     Assembly of Virginia), and the District of Columbia (D.C. Act 
     18-0095) contain the amendments to the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact specified by the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 
     (section 601, Public Law 110-432); and
       Whereas the consent of Congress is required in order to 
     implement such amendments: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO COMPACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Consent.--Consent of Congress is given to the 
     amendments of the State of Maryland, the amendments of the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia, and the amendments of the District 
     of Columbia to sections 5, 9 and 18 of title III of the 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact.
       (b) Amendments.--The amendments referred to in subsection 
     (a) are substantially as follows:
       (1) Section 5 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) The Authority shall be governed by a Board of eight 
     Directors consisting of two Directors for each Signatory and 
     two for the federal government (one of whom shall be a 
     regular passenger and customer of the bus or rail service of 
     the Authority). For Virginia, the Directors shall be 
     appointed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; 
     for the District of Columbia, by the Council of the District 
     of Columbia; for Maryland, by the Washington Suburban Transit 
     Commission; and for the Federal Government, by the 
     Administrator of General Services. For Virginia and Maryland, 
     the Directors shall be appointed from among the members of 
     the appointing body, except as otherwise provided herein, and 
     shall serve for a term coincident with their term on the 
     appointing body. A Director for a Signatory may be removed or 
     suspended from office only as provided by the law of the 
     Signatory from which he was appointed. The nonfederal 
     appointing authorities shall also appoint an alternate for 
     each Director. In addition, the Administrator of General 
     Services shall also appoint two nonvoting members who shall 
     serve as the alternates for the federal Directors. An 
     alternate Director may act only in the absence of the 
     Director for whom he has been appointed an alternate, except 
     that, in the case of the District of Columbia where only one 
     Director and his alternate are present, such alternate may 
     act on behalf of the absent Director. Each alternate, 
     including the federal nonvoting Directors, shall serve at the 
     pleasure of the appointing authority. In the event of a 
     vacancy in the Office of Director or alternate, it shall be 
     filled in the same manner as an original appointment.
       ``(b) Before entering upon the duties of his office each 
     Director and alternate Director shall take and subscribe to 
     the following oath (or affirmation) of office or any such 
     other oath or affirmation, if any, as the constitution or 
     laws of the Government he represents shall provide: `I, , 
     hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States and the 
     Constitution and laws of the state or political jurisdiction 
     from which I was appointed as a director (alternate director) 
     of the Board of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority and will faithfully discharge the duties of the 
     office upon which I am about to enter.' ''.
       (2) Subsection (a) of section 9 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) The officers of the Authority, none of whom shall be 
     members of the Board, shall consist of a general manager, a 
     secretary, a treasurer, a comptroller, an inspector general, 
     and a general counsel and such other officers as the Board 
     may provide. Except for the office of general manager, 
     inspector general, and comptroller, the Board may consolidate 
     any of such other offices in one person. All such officers 
     shall be appointed and may be removed by the Board, shall 
     serve at the pleasure of the Board and shall perform such 
     duties and functions as the Board shall specify. The Board 
     shall fix and determine the compensation to be paid to all 
     officers and, except for the general manager who shall be a 
     full-time employee, all other officers may be hired on a 
     full-time or part-time basis and may be compensated on a 
     salary or fee basis, as the Board may determine. All 
     employees and such officers as the Board may designate shall 
     be appointed and removed by the general manager under such 
     rules of procedure and standards as the Board may 
     determine.''.
       (3) Section 9 is further amended by inserting new 
     subsection (d) to read as follows (and by renumbering all 
     subsequent paragraphs of section 9):
       ``(d) The inspector general shall report to the Board and 
     head the Office of the Inspector General, an independent and 
     objective unit of the Authority that conducts and supervises 
     audits, program evaluations, and investigations relating to 
     Authority activities; promotes economy, efficiency, and 
     effectiveness in Authority activities; detects and prevents 
     fraud and abuse in Authority activities; and keeps the Board 
     fully and currently informed about deficiencies in Authority 
     activities as well as the necessity for and progress of 
     corrective action.''.
       (4) Section 18 is amended by adding a new section 18(d) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) All payments made by the local Signatory 
     governments for the Authority for the purpose of matching 
     federal funds appropriated in any given year as authorized 
     under title VI, section 601, Public Law 110-432 regarding 
     funding of capital and preventative maintenance projects of 1 
     the Authority shall be made from amounts derived from 
     dedicated funding sources.
       ``(2) For the purposes of this paragraph (d), a `dedicated 
     funding source' means any source of funding that is earmarked 
     or required under State or local law to be used to match 
     Federal appropriations authorized under title VI, section 
     601, Public Law 110-432 for payments to the Authority.''.

     SEC. 2. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly 
     reserved. The consent granted by this Act shall not be 
     construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right 
     or jurisdiction of the United States in and over the region 
     that forms the subject of the compact.

     SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY.

       It is intended that the provisions of this compact shall be 
     reasonably and liberally construed to effectuate the purposes 
     thereof. If any part or application of this compact, or 
     legislation enabling the compact, is held invalid, the 
     remainder of the compact or its application to other 
     situations or persons shall not be affected.

     SEC. 4. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.

       The validity of this compact shall not be affected by any 
     insubstantial differences in its form or language as adopted 
     by the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia and 
     District of Columbia.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

                          ____________________