[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 164 (Thursday, November 5, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11207-S11217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Nelson, of Florida):
  S. 2731. A bill to improve disaster assistance provided by the Small 
Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an 
issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana--
Federal disaster preparedness. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we 
keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This 
is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike last year. Our 
communities and businesses are still recovering from these disasters--
some from a disaster that devastated the Gulf Coast almost 5 years ago. 
For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship disaster preparedness is one of my top priorities. 
While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country 
are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, 
California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast 
sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from 
disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. With this 
in mind, we must ensure that the Federal Government is better prepared 
and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a 
disaster.
  As I mentioned, everyone around the country is familiar with the 
impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the New Orleans area and the 
southeast part of our state. Images from the devastation following 
these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted 
around the country and around the world. This is because Katrina was 
the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 
people killed--1,500 alone in Louisiana. Katrina was also the costliest 
natural disaster in United States history with over $81.2 billion in 
damage. In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically 
destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, 
across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 
businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. While we have made significant 
progress in rebuilding infrastructure, housing, and our economy, I 
continue to hear from individual business owners who are struggling to 
fully recover. These business owners tell me that they have not been 
hit by one disaster but three: Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hurricane 
Gustav in 2008, and the economic downturn. Louisiana was slow to feel 
the brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown but last year we 
began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of 
consumers' pocketbooks.
  One business owner that I have met with is Charles R. ``Ray'' 
Bergeron. He and his wife own Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New 
Orleans, Louisiana. Small Business Administration, SBA, Administrator 
Karen Mills and I toured Mr. Bergeron's business during a visit to New 
Orleans on June 30, 2009. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. and 
Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for 
their house and another for their small business. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de 
Lis Car Care Center had 8 employees. As of our visit in June, they were 
down to 2 employees not including Mr. Bergeron. They have a $225,000 
SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term. According to Mr. 
Bergeron, he will not pay it off until he is 101 years old. The 
business was back at about 40 percent of pre-Katrina sales, due in 
large measure to the population not being back. Their neighborhood is 
mostly empty homes. He attributes part of slow population recovery to 
high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's 
insurance. These are the type of businesses that we must ensure keep 
their doors open: businesses that took the initiative to re-open right 
after the disaster. These ``pioneer'' businesses serve as anchors to 
the community in the early days of recovery. If residents see their 
favorite restaurant open or the local gas station, they are more likely 
to come back to rebuild their homes.
  In order to help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to 
give the SBA more tools to respond after a future disaster, I am 
introducing the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and 
Reform Act of 2009. This legislation builds off of SBA disaster reforms 
enacted last year and also provides targeted assistance for Gulf Coast 
recovery. My bill also includes an important provision authorizing SBA 
to help families impacted by defective drywall manufactured in the 
People's Republic of China.
  In terms of immediate recovery assistance, Title I of the bill 
includes three provisions which I believe will help both Gulf Coast 
businesses as well as families nationwide dealing with toxic drywall in 
their homes. First, this bill amends Section 12086 added by SBA 
disaster reforms in the 2008 Farm Bill. This provision created a Gulf 
Coast Disaster Loan Refinancing Program. The intent of the program, as 
I understand it from my colleagues in the House of Representatives, was 
to allow Gulf Coast businesses and homeowners to defer for up to 4 
years, payments on SBA disaster loans. This provision certainly had 
good intentions, however, we are a year on and the program has yet to 
be implemented. That is because in practice the program would likely be 
re-amortizing the same debt and, under the Credit Reform Act, to 
refinance a $1,000,000 disaster loan would require $1,000,000 in 
additional funding. To try to salvage this program, my bill would 
require SBA to report back to Congress in 30 days with recommendations 
on improving this program. These recommendations could include such 
additional options as modifying the end of the deferment date of loans, 
reducing interest payments on loans, extending out the term of loans to 
35 years or other changes to the program that might make it more 
workable. I believe this program is on the right track, Congress just 
needs advice from the SBA on how we can make it work better to actually 
help people in the Gulf Coast.
  The next provision in Title I relates to minority businesses in the 
Gulf Coast that were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Everyone 
is familiar with the images and the cost of these storms, but they may 
not be too familiar with the impact on individual businesses. In 
particular, I am speaking about the affects of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita on minority firms in the Gulf Coast. As a result of these storms, 
many minority firms in the Gulf Coast were disrupted and thus lost 
valuable time for participating in the 8(a) program. The 8(a) business 
development initiative, created under the Small Business 
Administration, helps minority entrepreneurs access Federal contracts 
and allows companies to be certified for increments of three years. 
These contracts are vital to the revival of these impacted areas. 
However, as currently structured the program allows businesses to 
participate for a limited length of time, 9 years, after which they can 
never re-apply nor get back into the program. It is imperative that we 
provide contracting assistance to our local minority businesses.
  My bill includes a provision which would tackle this problem in three 
important ways. First, the bill extends 8(a) eligibility for program 
participants in Katrina/Rita-impacted areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Alabama by 24 months. The bill would also apply to any areas in the 
state of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that have been designated 
by the Administrator of the Small Business Administration as a disaster 
area as a result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. Lastly, the bill would 
require the administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
ensure that every small business participating in the 8(a) program 
before the date of enactment of the Act is reviewed and brought into 
compliance with this act. This requirement would ensure that any 
eligible previous 8(a) participants will be allowed back into

[[Page S11208]]

the program. As such, these key provisions would ensure that these 
businesses continue to play a vital role in rebuilding their 
communities. I note that I introduced a similar provision as part of S. 
3285, the Disadvantaged Business Disaster Eligibility Act during the 
110th Congress. Last Congress, the proposal passed the House of 
Representatives but we were unable to pass the legislation here in the 
Senate before we adjourned for the year. I look forward to renewing my 
fight this Congress as I believe that this is a commonsense proposal 
which would not cost a great deal. It would, however, make a huge 
difference for these businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita.

  The last recovery-related provision in Title I of the bill is focused 
on families impacted by defective drywall manufactured in the People's 
Republic of China. Since 2006, more than 550 million pounds of drywall 
have been imported to the United States from China. This drywall was 
used because at the time there was a shortage of product by domestic 
drywall producers and there was increased demand due to recovery from 
the 2004/2005 hurricanes and the housing boom. In the last 20 months, 
however, countless homeowners across the country have reported serious 
metal corrosion, noxious fumes, and health concerns. Reported symptoms 
have included bloody noses, headaches, insomnia, and skin irritation. 
Preliminary testing has confirmed that imported defective drywall is 
the problem, but these tests have not been able to pinpoint the problem 
substance in the drywall.
  Just last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, 
released additional preliminary results of this drywall which did not 
identify the exact cause but did outline areas for concern. First, CPSC 
tested Chinese drywall and compared it with U.S.-made drywall. Chinese 
drywall contained elemental sulfur and higher levels of strontium--both 
not in domestic drywall. These findings are similar to May 2009 test 
results from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Strontium and 
sulfur, in increased levels, have been linked to possible health 
problems. CPSC also carried out chamber testing on emissions from 
samples of Chinese-made and domestic drywall. Early results show that 
Chinese drywall emits volatile sulfur compounds at a higher rate than 
U.S. drywall. Further testing is underway to determine the specific 
compounds being emitted. Lastly, Federal officials analyzed indoor air 
results from 10 homes in Florida and Louisiana. This study led to a 
preliminary finding of detectable concentrations of two known 
irritants: acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The concentrations were at 
levels that could worsen asthma or other conditions, especially when 
air conditioners were off/not working. Later this month, the CPSC is 
expected to release more comprehensive information on Chinese drywall. 
This includes results of a 50-home air sampling project and a 
preliminary engineering analysis of potential electrical/fire safety 
issues related to metal corrosion. Key to any results would be Federal 
recommendations on testing and remediation protocols for Chinese 
drywall. This would be crucial for homeowners who currently have no 
definitive way to prove they have Chinese drywall in their homes or 
procedures to remove the product for good.
  In total, as of last week the CPSC had received 1,900 incident 
reports from 30 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The 
majority of these reports, 1,317, came from Florida, with Louisiana 
next, 339, followed by Virginia, 69, Mississippi, 63, and Alabama, 32. 
These figures demonstrate that this problem is not just an obstacle to 
Gulf Coast recovery efforts but may also pose a threat to homeowners 
across the country.
  To help homeowners struggling with this defective product, I have 
worked closely over the past few months with my Senate colleagues from 
Florida and Virginia. This summer, Senator Bill Nelson and I were 
successful, along with the leadership of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, in pushing the CPSC to allocate $2,000,000 in unobligated 
funds to help the Chinese drywall investigation. Senator Nelson and 
Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb from Virginia also wrote to the 
Internal Revenue Service inquiring if they could assist homeowners. The 
IRS indicated in July that homeowners may be able to claim a casualty 
loss on their tax returns if they have Chinese drywall that emits an 
unusual or severe concentration of chemical fumes that causes extreme 
and unusual damage. We have also written to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, inquiring if the agency could provide 
emergency rental assistance as it has done in the past.
  In July, my Senate colleagues and I wrote to the SBA asking what they 
could do under existing authority to help these families. In its 
October 29, 2009, response to this letter, SBA indicated that it did 
not currently have the authority to assist homeowners impacted by 
drywall. This is because, under the current law, SBA's definition of a 
disaster only includes typical natural disasters such as tornadoes, 
hurricanes, wildfires, or snowstorms. However, it is my understanding 
that for previous disasters, there is a precedent in Congress 
authorizing SBA to respond to a specific disaster and one instance 
where Congress tasked $25,000,000 in existing funds to help ongoing 
recovery efforts. Manufacturers of this product should bear the 
majority of the financial burden for remediation but I believe there is 
a limited role for SBA to play in assisting homeowners with toxic 
drywall.
  For this reason, the legislation I am introducing today includes an 
authorization for the SBA Administrator to provide disaster home loans 
in States in which a Governor declares a disaster because of defective 
drywall. The provision would cover drywall which entered the United 
States from China from 2004 to 2008 and is demonstrated to cause 
corrosion or property damage. I note that this provision would not 
provide SBA funds for losses or damage covered by insurance or other 
sources. This authorization also caps the funding at this program at no 
more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for SBA disaster 
assistance. In a normal Appropriations cycle, this would equate to 
about $25,000,000 in funds or $250,000,000 in actual disaster loans. If 
enacted, this provision would go a long way towards helping these 
struggling families.
  While it is important to respond to ongoing recovery-related needs 
across the country, we must also ensure that the SBA is better prepared 
for future disasters. To these ends, my committee held a field hearing 
in Galveston, Texas on September 25, 2009. This hearing focused on the 
initial Federal response and ongoing recovery efforts from Hurricane 
Ike in 2008. The hearing was the first Congressional hearing held in 
Galveston since Hurricane Ike struck the Texas Gulf Coast last year. 
With this in mind, we were able to hear firsthand Federal, State, and 
local officials on the progress of rebuilding Galveston Island. My 
committee also heard from business owners on the challenges that 
emerged in the year that passed since Ike made landfall.
  This hearing highlighted improvements in SBA's disaster programs 
since the 2005 storms. For example, after Katrina and Rita, the Federal 
response was slow; planning was insufficient, and staff and funding 
came up short. Following the 2005 storms, it took SBA 90 days to 
process a home loan and 70 days to process a business loan. After this 
woeful performance, I pushed for a change in SBA leadership and changes 
in the way they respond to disasters. In 2006, a new SBA Administrator, 
Steve Preston, took over and, at my request, he implemented a new SBA 
Disaster Response Plan in time for the 2007 hurricane season. This plan 
was a major improvement over the unwieldy, bureaucratic procedures that 
guided SBA post-Katrina/Rita. SBA will also be submitting to Congress 
in the next few weeks 2009 revisions to the Disaster Response Plan. I 
look forward to reviewing these changes in the event that additional 
improvements are needed.
  Last year, as part of the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress also passed 
legislative reforms to SBA's disaster programs. These reforms, along 
with other key improvements: Increased SBA loan limits from $1.5 
million to $2 million; created new tools such as bridge loans or 
private disaster loans following catastrophic disasters; required 
coordination between FEMA, SBA, and the IRS; and allowed nonprofits, 
for the first time, to be eligible for SBA economic injury disaster 
loans. Earlier this year, our committee heard testimony from

[[Page S11209]]

local officials in southwest Louisiana that SBA was better prepared and 
more responsive following Gustav and Ike. As evidence of this, I note 
that it took 5 days to process a home loan following Ike, compared to 
the 90 days after Katrina and Rita. Business loans averaged a little 
over a week to process, compared to the 70 days in 2005.
  However, although we heard about improvements to SBA's disaster 
response at the Galveston hearing, we also learned of additional areas 
that SBA could further improve its operations. While SBA is processing 
loans faster, there are still complaints from disaster victims on 
paperwork and bureaucracy. For example, as of August 31, SBA had 
received about 2,400 business applications for disaster assistance in 
Galveston County. 536 of those applications were approved for $84 
million but, to date, only $24 million has been disbursed for 280 of 
these loans. In light of these facts, I am concerned that 2008 disaster 
reforms might not have gone far enough in giving SBA the tools it needs 
to help businesses and homeowners after a future disaster. Title II of 
my legislation dovetails upon the reforms from last year to improve SBA 
coordination with other disaster response agencies. This section also 
makes SBA disaster loans more effective in reaching disaster victims 
most in need of assistance.
  As indicated above, when Katrina hit, our businesses and homeowners 
had to wait months for loan approvals. I do not know how many 
businesses we lost because help did not come in time. Because of the 
scale of this disaster, what these businesses needed was immediate, 
short-term assistance to hold them over until SBA was ready to process 
the tens of thousands of loan applications it received. That is why in 
last year's SBA disaster reforms, I included a provision--the Expedited 
Disaster Assistance Loan Program--to allow the SBA Administrator with 
the ability to set up a program to make short-term, low-interest loans 
to keep them afloat. These loans will allow businesses to make payroll, 
begin making repairs, and address other immediate needs while they are 
awaiting insurance payouts or regular SBA Disaster Loans.
  This provision also directed SBA to study ways to expedite disaster 
loans for those businesses in a disaster area that have a good, solid 
track record with the SBA or can provide vital recovery efforts. We had 
many businesses in the Gulf Coast that had paid off previous SBA loans, 
were major sources of employment in their communities, but had to wait 
months for decisions on their SBA Disaster Loan applications. I do not 
want to get rid of the SBA's current practice of reviewing applications 
on a first-come-first-served basis, but there should be some mechanism 
in place for major disasters to get expedited loans out the door to 
specific businesses that have a positive record with SBA or those that 
could serve a vital role in the recovery efforts. Expedited loans would 
jump-start impacted economies, get vital capital out to businesses, and 
retain essential jobs following future disasters.
  While I am proud of this provision, I believe that with a few 
additional revisions, this program could be more successful. For this 
reason, Section 201 of this bill increases the loan limit from $150,000 
to $250,000 and allows the SBA Administrator to utilize this program, 
as needed, in either a catastrophic or a major disaster. Currently, the 
program is limited only to a catastrophic disaster, despite the fact 
that another bridge loan program from the 2008 Farm Bill--the Immediate 
Disaster Assistance Loan Program--is available for both catastrophic 
and major disasters. I realize that every disaster is different and 
could range from a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or 
9/11, to an ice storm or drought. The modification in my bill would 
allow SBA additional options and flexibility in the kinds of relief 
they can offer a community. When a tornado destroys 20 businesses in a 
small town in the Midwest, SBA can get the regular disaster program up 
and running fairly quickly. You may not need short-term loans in this 
instance. But if you know that SBA's resources would be overwhelmed by 
a storm--just as they were initially with Katrina--these expedited 
business loans would be very helpful. This section also changes the 
name of the program to the ``Pioneer Business Recovery Program'' as the 
intent of the program is to help ``second responder'' or ``pioneer'' 
businesses that want to reopen immediately following a storm.
  The next provision of my bill, Section 202, increases SBA disaster 
loan limits. In particular, it is my understanding that SBA's disaster 
home loan limits have not been adjusted since the 1990s. The current 
limit for SBA disaster loans to replace personal property is $40,000, 
and the limit for SBA disaster loans to repair damaged homes is 
$200,000. My legislation would increase the limits to $80,000 and 
$400,000, respectively. The bill also increases the SBA disaster 
business loan limit from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000. I believe that these 
increases would allow SBA to better address the needs of disaster 
victims in the future.
  Section 203 of the bill authorizes SBA to create a State Bridge Loan 
Guarantee Program. This program would enhance existing partnerships 
between SBA and States which administer bridge loan programs following 
disasters. Currently, SBA consults with States pre-disaster on the 
structure of their program. This is to ensure that these programs run 
effectively and do not duplicate assistance provided by the SBA 
disaster assistance program. There are various States, including 
Louisiana and Florida, which have successful bridge loan programs, and 
other States which would consider this type of program if there was 
better Federal-State coordination. Section 203 would allow the SBA 
Administrator to issue guidelines on an SBA-approved bridge loan 
program. After issuing these guidelines, SBA could then review State 
applications and, if necessary, guarantee bridge loans from approved 
States following a disaster. I would note that this provision was part 
of S. 3664, the Small Business Disaster Recovery Assistance 
Improvements Act of 2006 which I introduced in the 109th Congress.

  Another provision which I would like to highlight in this bill is 
Section 205. This section amends the Small Business Act to make 
aquaculture businesses eligible for SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans. 
Currently, such businesses, including crawfish farmers, oyster farmers, 
shellfish farmers, are excluded from eligibility for these loans. In 
Louisiana, our aquaculture businesses in the southern part of the State 
were hit hard by both Hurricane Katrina and Rita. These businesses, 
many crawfish far ers or those with fish farms, were ineligible for 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, disaster assistance, but were 
also ineligible for SBA disaster loans. We also learned that similar 
problems followed Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. I believe that the 
commonsense fix in my bill will give these businesses the help they 
need to recover from future disasters.
  I am concerned about the larger problem which was raised by 
aquaculture businesses in my State being caught in limbo between USDA 
and SBA disaster programs. SBA for example provides physical and 
economic injury disaster loan assistance to businesses that are victims 
of a declared disaster. However, the Small Business Act excludes 
agricultural enterprises from eligibility. The act defines 
``agricultural enterprises'' as ``those businesses engaged in the 
production of food and fiber, ranching, and raising livestock, 
aquaculture, and all other farming and agricultural related 
industries.'' Thus, if a business is an agricultural enterprise, SBA is 
prohibited from providing disaster loan assistance. Prior to 1976, 
agricultural enterprises were covered by USDA only, and between 1976 
and 1986, several statutes allowed agricultural enterprises to be 
eligible for SBA assistance under certain conditions. As a result of a 
couple of factors though including duplication of benefits, disparity 
of service between SBA and USDA and loan shopping, Public Law. 99-272 
repealed agricultural eligibility for SBA disaster loans. Since then, 
all agricultural enterprises have been referred to USDA for disaster 
loans.
  Though USDA has several disaster programs, most are related to 
production loss of crops. The Farm Service Agency's Emergency Loan 
Program covers some agriculture related disaster losses, but operates 
under different eligibility rules from SBA. They

[[Page S11210]]

are limited to production on agriculture operations and restrict 
eligibility to ``family farm'' operations. The disparity between 
eligibility requirements for the SBA and USDA has resulted in many 
agricultural businesses being ineligible for disaster assistance at 
all. Included in that category are horse-related businesses, feedlots, 
animal breeders and sellers, nurseries, floriculture, tree farms, fish 
or shellfish business, seed producers, along with others. That is 
because, to currently be eligible for an SBA disaster loan, a primarily 
agricultural enterprise must have a separable non-agricultural 
component, which may be eligible for physical disaster loan assistance 
provided that it is a separate part of the agricultural enterprise, 
with separate income, operations, expenses, assets, etc. For economic 
injury disaster loan assistance, the Small Business Act limits 
eligibility to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, 
producer cooperatives, and private non-profit organizations. Therefore, 
the business must meet the eligibility requirements for a small 
business, and for purposes of EIDL eligibility, the activity of a 
business must be nonagricultural.
  To try to identify some of these gaps between USDA and SBA disaster 
assistance, Section 209 would require SBA, in consultation with USDA, 
to report to Congress within 120 days. This report would identify gaps 
in assistance and provide recommended legislative/administrative 
changes to fix these problems. For my part, I would like to get these 
agencies on the same page to ensure that businesses in need--whether 
they be small businesses or agricultural businesses--are not deprived 
of assistance if a disaster happens in their area.
  In closing, the legislation I am introducing today is an important 
first step for the Small Business Administration. That is because I am 
hopeful that, at the appropriate time, my committee can send to the 
full Senate legislation which will both reform SBA's disaster programs 
and address ongoing recovery needs across the country. With that goal 
in mind, I plan to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
in the coming months to identify their priorities on these issues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2731

       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 ``Small Business 
     Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the term ``approved State Bridge Loan Program'' means a 
     State Bridge Loan Program approved under section 203(b);
       (3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 3 of the Small Business Act; 
     and
       (4) the term ``State'' means any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and any territory or possession of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Table of contents.

TITLE I--GULF COAST RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY 
         DRYWALL MANUFACTURED IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Sec. 101. Report on the Gulf Coast Disaster Loan Refinancing Program.
Sec. 102. Extension of participation term for victims of Hurricane 
              Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
Sec. 103. Assistance for homeowners impacted by drywall manufactured in 
              the People's Republic of China.

 TITLE II--IMPROVEMENTS TO ADMINISTRATION DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Improvements to the Pioneer Business Recovery Program.
Sec. 202. Increased limits.
Sec. 203. State bridge loan guarantee.
Sec. 204. Modified collateral requirements.
Sec. 205. Aquaculture business disaster assistance.
Sec. 206. Regional outreach on disaster assistance programs.
Sec. 207. Duplication of benefits.
Sec. 208. Administration coordination on economic injury disaster 
              declarations.
Sec. 209. Coordination between Small Business Administration and 
              Department of Agriculture disaster programs.
Sec. 210. Technical and conforming amendment.

TITLE I--GULF COAST RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY 
         DRYWALL MANUFACTURED IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

     SEC. 101. REPORT ON THE GULF COAST DISASTER LOAN REFINANCING 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 12086 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2184) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House 
     of Representatives a report making recommendations regarding 
     improvements to the program.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) may include 
     recommendations relating to--
       ``(A) modifying the end of the deferment date of Gulf Coast 
     disaster loans;
       ``(B) reducing interest payments on Gulf Coast disaster 
     loans, subject to the availability of appropriations;
       ``(C) extending the term of Gulf Coast disaster loans to 35 
     years; and
       ``(D) any other modification to the program determined 
     appropriate by the Administrator.''.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION TERM FOR VICTIMS OF 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE RITA.

       (a) Retroactivity.--If a small business concern, while 
     participating in any program or activity under the authority 
     of paragraph (10) of section 7(j) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636(j)), was located in a parish or county 
     described in subsection (b) of this section and was affected 
     by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, the 
     period during which that small business concern is permitted 
     continuing participation and eligibility in that program or 
     activity shall be extended for 24 months after the date such 
     participation and eligibility would otherwise terminate.
       (b) Parishes and Counties Covered.--Subsection (a) applies 
     to any parish in the State of Louisiana, or any county in the 
     State of Mississippi or in the State of Alabama, that has 
     been designated by the Administrator as a disaster area by 
     reason of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 
     under disaster declaration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180, 
     10181, 10205, or 10206.
       (c) Review and Compliance.--The Administrator shall ensure 
     that the case of every small business concern participating 
     before the date of enactment of this Act in a program or 
     activity covered by subsection (a) is reviewed and brought 
     into compliance with this section.

     SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY DRYWALL 
                   MANUFACTURED IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``defective 
     drywall'' means drywall board that the Administrator 
     determines--
       (1) was manufactured in the People's Republic of China;
       (2) was imported into the United States during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 2004, and ending on December 31, 
     2008; and
       (3) is directly responsible for substantial metal corrosion 
     or other property damage in the dwelling in which the drywall 
     is installed.
       (b) Disaster Assistance for Homeowners Impacted by 
     Defective Drywall.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may, upon request by a 
     Governor that has declared a disaster as a result of property 
     loss or damage as a result of defective drywall, declare a 
     disaster under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)) relating to the defective drywall.
       (2) Uses.--Assistance under a disaster declared under 
     paragraph (1) may be used only for the repair or replacement 
     of defective drywall.
       (3) Limitation.--Assistance under a disaster declared under 
     paragraph (1) may not--
       (A) provide compensation for losses or damage compensated 
     for by insurance or other sources; and
       (B) exceed more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated 
     to the Administration for disaster assistance during any 
     fiscal year.

 TITLE II--IMPROVEMENTS TO ADMINISTRATION DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PIONEER BUSINESS RECOVERY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 12085 of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 636j) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``EXPEDITED 
     DISASTER ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM'' and inserting ``PIONEER 
     BUSINESS RECOVERY PROGRAM'';
       (2) by striking ``expedited disaster assistance business 
     loan program'' each place it

[[Page S11211]]

     appears and inserting ``Pioneer Business Recovery Program'';
       (3) in subsection (b) by striking ``paragraph (9)'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``section 7(b) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)).''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)(3)(A), by striking ``$150,000'' and 
     inserting ``$250,000''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents in section 1(b) of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1651) is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 12085 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 12085. Pioneer Business Recovery Program.''.

     SEC. 202. INCREASED LIMITS.

       Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(6)--
       (A) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$400,000''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$80,000'';
       (2) by striking ``(e) [RESERVED].''; and
       (3) by striking ``(f) [RESERVED].''.

     SEC. 203. STATE BRIDGE LOAN GUARANTEE.

       (a) Authorization.--After issuing guidelines under 
     subsection (c), the Administrator may guarantee loans made 
     under an approved State Bridge Loan Program.
       (b) Approval.--
       (1) Application.--A State desiring approval of a State 
     Bridge Loan Program shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such manner, and accompanied 
     by such information as the Administrator may require.
       (2) Criteria.--The Administrator may approve an application 
     submitted under paragraph (1) based on such criteria as the 
     Administrator may establish under this section.
       (c) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue to the 
     appropriate economic development officials in each State, the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives, guidelines regarding approved State Bridge 
     Loan Programs.
       (2) Contents.--The guidelines issued under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) identify appropriate uses of funds under an approved 
     State Bridge loan Program;
       (B) set terms and conditions for loans under an approved 
     State Bridge loan Program;
       (C) address whether--
       (i) an approved State Bridge Loan Program may charge 
     administrative fees; and
       (ii) loans under an approved State Bridge Loan Program 
     shall be disbursed through local banks and other financial 
     institutions; and
       (D) establish the percentage of a loan the Administrator 
     will guarantee under an approved State Bridge Loan Program.

     SEC. 204. MODIFIED COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 7(d)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(d)(6)) is amended by inserting after ``which are made 
     under paragraph (1) of subsection (b)'' the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator shall not require 
     collateral for a loan of not more than $200,000 under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) relating to damage to 
     or destruction of property of, or economic injury to, a small 
     business concern''.

     SEC. 205. AQUACULTURE BUSINESS DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       Section 18(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     647(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``aquaculture,''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon ``, and does not 
     include aquaculture''.

     SEC. 206. REGIONAL OUTREACH ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Report.--In accordance with sections 7(b)(4) and 40(a) 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(4) and 657l(a)) 
     and not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on 
     Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, 
     a report detailing--
       (1) information on the disasters, manmade or natural, most 
     likely to occur in each region of the Administration and 
     likely scenarios for each disaster in each region;
       (2) information on plans of the Administration, if any, to 
     conduct annual disaster outreach seminars, including events 
     with resource partners of the Administration, in each region 
     before periods of predictable disasters described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) information on plans of the Administration for 
     satisfying the requirements under section 40(a) of the Small 
     Business Act not satisfied on the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (4) such additional information as determined necessary by 
     the Administrator.
       (b) Availability of Information.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) post the disaster information provided under subsection 
     (a) on the website of the Administration; and
       (2) make the information provided under subsection (a) 
     available, upon request, at each regional and district office 
     of the Administration.

     SEC. 207. DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5155) states the 
     following:
       (A) ``The President, in consultation with the head of each 
     Federal agency administering any program providing financial 
     assistance to persons, business concerns, or other emergency, 
     shall assure that no such person, business concern, or other 
     entity will receive such assistance with respect to any part 
     of such loss as to which he has received financial assistance 
     under any other program or from insurance or any other 
     source.''.
       (B) ``Receipt of partial benefits for a major disaster or 
     emergency shall not preclude provision of additional Federal 
     assistance for any part of a loss or need for which benefits 
     have not been provided.''.
       (C) A recipient of Federal assistance will be liable to the 
     United States ``to the extent that such assistance duplicates 
     benefits available to the person for the same purpose from 
     another source.''.
       (2) The Administrator should make every effort to ensure 
     that disaster recovery needs unmet by Federal and private 
     sources are not overlooked in determining duplication of 
     benefits for disaster victims.
       (b) Revised Duplication of Benefits Calculations.--The 
     Administrator may, after consultation with other relevant 
     Federal agencies, determine whether benefits are duplicated 
     after a person receiving assistance under section 7(b) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) receives other Federal 
     disaster assistance by a disaster victim.

     SEC. 208. ADMINISTRATION COORDINATION ON ECONOMIC INJURY 
                   DISASTER DECLARATIONS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Small 
     Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Small Business of the House of Representatives, a report 
     providing--
       (1) information on economic injury disaster declarations 
     under section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)(2)) made by the Administrator during the 10-year 
     period ending on the date of enactment of this Act based on a 
     natural disaster declaration by the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) information on economic injury disaster declarations 
     under section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)(2)) made by the Administrator during the 10-year 
     period ending on the date of enactment of this Act based on a 
     fishery resource disaster declaration from the Secretary of 
     Commerce;
       (3) information on whether the disaster response plan of 
     the Administration under section 40 of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 657l) adequately addresses coordination with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce on 
     economic injury disaster assistance under section 7(b)(2) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2));
       (4) recommended legislative changes, if any, for improving 
     agency coordination on economic injury disaster declarations 
     under section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)(2)); and
       (5) such additional information as determined necessary by 
     the Administrator.

     SEC. 209. COORDINATION BETWEEN SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 
                   AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DISASTER 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``agricultural small business concern'' means 
     a small business concern that is an agricultural enterprise, 
     as defined in section 18(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 647(b)(1)), as amended by this Act; and
       (2) the term ``rural small business concern'' means a small 
     business concern located in a rural area, as that term is 
     defined in section 1393(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives, a report detailing--
       (1) information on disaster assistance programs of the 
     Administration for rural small business concerns and 
     agricultural small business concerns;
       (2) information on industries or small business concerns 
     excluded from programs described in paragraph (1);
       (3) information on disaster assistance programs of the 
     Department of Agriculture to rural small business concerns 
     and agricultural small business concerns;
       (4) information on industries or small business concerns 
     excluded from programs described in paragraph (3);
       (5) information on disaster assistance programs of the 
     Administration that are duplicative of disaster assistance 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture;
       (6) information on coordination between the two agencies on 
     implementation of disaster assistance provisions of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 1651), and the amendments made by that Act;
       (7) recommended legislative or administrative changes, if 
     any, for improving coordination of disaster assistance 
     programs, in particular relating to removing gaps in 
     eligibility for disaster assistance programs by rural small 
     business concerns and agricultural small business concerns; 
     and

[[Page S11212]]

       (8) such additional information as determined necessary by 
     the Administrator.

     SEC. 210. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) 
     is amended in the matter following paragraph (9), by striking 
     ``section 312(a) of the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act'' and inserting ``section 312(a) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5155(a))''.
                                  ____

                                    Small Business Administration,


                                  Office of the Administrator,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2009.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter requesting 
     that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) review its 
     existing authority under the Stafford Act to provide disaster 
     assistance to affected businesses and homeowners impacted by 
     the use of allegedly defective drywall. Having toured New 
     Orleans earlier this year, I share your concern for the 
     victims of Hurricane Katrina.
       The Stafford Act is the general statutory authority for 
     most Federal disaster response activities as they pertain to 
     Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) programs. When, 
     pursuant to the Stafford Act, the President declares a Major 
     Disaster or emergency and authorizes Federal assistance, 
     including individual assistance, SBA is authorized to make 
     physical disaster loans and economic injury disaster loans to 
     disaster victims. In addition, SBA has the authority under 
     the Small Business Act (Act) to issue disaster declarations 
     and to make physical and economic injury disaster loans to 
     disaster victims in SBA-declared disasters. Under the Act, a 
     ``disaster'' is generally defined as a sudden event which 
     causes severe damage. Product defects do not fall within the 
     statutory definition for a ``disaster.'' Thus, SBA has never 
     based a disaster declaration on defective products. While we 
     are sympathetic to these victims, the installation of 
     defective drywall likewise would not fall within this 
     statutory definition and could not serve as the basis for an 
     SBA disaster declaration.
       In response to the specific issues raised in your letter, 
     SBA does have the authority to disburse additional funds to 
     existing disaster borrowers for disaster-related damage that 
     is discovered within a reasonable time after original loan 
     approval and before repairs are complete. However, if the 
     repair, replacement or rehabilitation of the disaster-damaged 
     property has been completed, SBA does not increase an 
     existing loan.
       You also asked whether SBA may issue a disaster declaration 
     based on a request from a Governor. After SBA receives a 
     request from a Governor that satisfies the statutory and 
     regulatory requirements, SBA can issue a physical or economic 
     injury disaster declaration and make low interest loans to 
     cover uninsured losses. As noted above, however, the 
     installation of defective drywall would not qualify as a 
     disaster under the SBA's statutory definition.
       Thank you again for your continued support of the SBA 
     disaster loan program and the small business community. A 
     similar response is being sent to your colleagues, Senators 
     Nelson, Warner, and Webb.
           With warmest regards,
     Karen G. Mills.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2009.
     Hon. Karen G. Mills,
     Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Mills: As we write to you, the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with other Federal 
     and State agencies, are conducting a comprehensive 
     investigation into the health and safety impacts of Chinese-
     made drywall on American consumers. The U.S. Small Business 
     Administration (SBA) has an important role in disaster 
     response and recovery efforts--helping both homeowners and 
     businesses impacted by manmade and natural disasters. We 
     believe that, at the appropriate time, your agency may be of 
     assistance to homeowners impacted by this toxic product.
       Since 2006, more than 550 million pounds of drywall have 
     been imported to the United States from China. In the last 18 
     months, countless homeowners across the country have reported 
     serious metal corrosion, noxious fumes and health concerns. 
     Reported symptoms have included bloody noses, headaches, 
     insomnia and skin irritation. Preliminary testing has 
     confirmed that imported defective drywall is the problem, but 
     these tests have not been able to pinpoint the specific 
     problem substance within the drywall. More comprehensive 
     results are expected from CPSC and EPA in August/September. 
     In total, the CPSC has received 608 incident reports from 21 
     states and the District of Columbia, demonstrating that this 
     poses a threat to homeowners across the country.
       With this in mind, we respectfully request that the SBA 
     review its existing authority under the Stafford Act and 
     respond no later than August 28, 2009 on the following:
       Whether SBA may disburse additional funds on SBA Real 
     Property Disaster Loans from previous disaster or emergency 
     declarations (such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 
     the 2004 Florida Hurricanes, the 2008 Midwest floods, or 
     other emergency/disaster declarations).
       Also outline if the SBA can waive the two year time limit 
     for requesting an increase in loan limits since extraordinary 
     and unforeseeable circumstances may apply in this situation;
       Whether SBA--following a written request from a Governor 
     that has declared a disaster or emergency--may make a 
     physical disaster declaration if homes, businesses or a 
     combination of the two, have sustained uninsured losses; and
       Whether SBA may make an economic injury declaration if it 
     is demonstrated that at least five small businesses in a 
     disaster area have suffered economic injury as a result of 
     the disaster or emergency and are in need of financial help 
     not otherwise available.
       In closing, families in our states are, in many cases, 
     watching their dream homes turn into nightmares. As the 
     Federal government determines the full size and scope of this 
     disaster, we believe it is important to marshal all 
     appropriate Federal resources that may assist these families. 
     We therefore thank you for your consideration of this 
     important request.
           Sincerely,
     Mary L. Landrieu,
       U.S. Senator.
     Bill Nelson,
       U.S. Senator.
     Mark R. Warner,
       U.S. Senator.
     Jim Webb,
       U.S. Senator.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 2734. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect 
to the prevention of diabetes, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, right now many of us are engaged in a 
worthwhile discussion about health care and health insurance. These are 
immensely important topics, and I look forward to working with all 
colleagues to pass health reform this year. In these broader 
discussions, it is easy to forget that the best way to become a 
healthier country with lower health care costs is to prevent Americans 
from becoming sick in the first place. A great place to prioritize 
wellness over sickness comes in our prevention of diabetes.
  Today 24 million Americans suffer from diabetes, and the epidemic is 
getting worse. If we do not make some changes soon, the prevalence of 
the disease will double over the next 30 years. The annual cost of 
diabetes in the country is expected to reach $338 billion by 2020. 
Right now 57 million Americans are what is considered prediabetic.
  That means they are at risk of developing the full-blown disease 
because they have high blood pressure or high glucose levels. These 
statistics include over a million adults and 92,000 youth in my State 
alone. These are Minnesotans who may find out tomorrow they have become 
diabetic.
  We know that diabetes may become debilitating and require costly 
medical interventions, from daily injections of insulin all the way to 
amputations. We know how devastating this disease is from the stories 
we hear when we are back home.
  This week I was on the floor and shared the story of Liz MacCaskie 
from Minneapolis. She lost her job in September and is 58 years old, my 
exact age. She lives with diabetes and was just diagnosed with kidney 
failure. She is paying close to $20,000 a year for her insurance and 
trying to live on $1,000 a month.
  If we could help people such as Liz avoid the pain and suffering that 
comes from diabetes, it would be a healthier, more prosperous country. 
The good news is that we can help Americans avoid this costly and 
debilitating disease. Research has shown that prediabetics can avoid 
full-blown diabetes if they receive access to community services such 
as nutrition counseling and gym memberships. These are proven to cut 
the risk of developing diabetes in half.
  I am pleased to be offering legislation with Senator Lugar to ensure 
that prediabetics have access to services that will stop this disease 
in its tracks. The Diabetes Prevention Act is based on an NIH research 
study done in partnership with the YMCA in Indiana. The study showed 
that a 16-week intensive lifestyle program can prevent diabetes and 
cost less than $300 per person--less than $300 per person--per

[[Page S11213]]

year. Studies have shown us that this investment can save us money 
within 2 to 3 years.
  The Minnesota Department of Health has been working with our local 
YMCAs in Willmar, Rochester, and Minneapolis to implement this program. 
We have a diverse group of instructors who speak Spanish, Hmong, 
Somali, and American Sign Language. They include parish nurses, 
dietitians, and community health educators. All these folks are helping 
community members to eat healthier and become more physically active. 
For the lucky people who get to participate in these programs, it is 
working. They are losing weight, getting healthier, and avoiding 
diabetes.
  But right now, these efforts are a drop in the bucket because the 
epidemic is so great. With this bill, we will replicate this cost-
effective program and improve the lives of millions of Americans. This 
bill will help communities across the country to set up diabetes 
prevention programs--on Indian reservations, in rural areas, and urban 
centers. Ultimately, health insurance companies will be reimbursing for 
these services because prevention saves money and it saves lives.
  This is an investment in our Nation's future. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Feinstein, and 
        Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2736. A bill to reduce the rape kit backlog and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, sexual assault is a heinous crime. It is 
also a startlingly common one. Last year, 90,000 people were raped. We 
as a Nation have an obligation to help the survivors of sexual 
assault--by providing them prompt medical attention, and by bringing 
their assailants to justice.
  Thanks to modern technology, we have an unparalleled tool to bring 
sexual predators to justice: forensic DNA analysis. Using the DNA 
evidence collected in a rape kit, a police department can conclusively 
identify an assailant--even when the survivor cannot visually identify 
her attacker. When DNA collected in rape kits matches existing DNA 
records, police can quickly capture habitual rapists before they strike 
again. Rape kit DNA evidence is survivors' best bet for justice. It is 
also communities' best bet for public safety.
  Unfortunately, we have failed to make adequate use of DNA analysis. 
In 1999, a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice 
estimated that there was a backlog of over 180,000 untested rape kits. 
In 2004, responding to studies like this one, then-Senator Biden, 
Chairman Leahy and others worked to pass the Debbie Smith Act, a law 
named after a rape survivor whose backlogged rape kit was tested six 
years after her assault. That act provided federal funding for the 
testing of backlogged DNA evidence. Unfortunately, it did not require 
those funds to test DNA evidence in rape kits.
  Because of this loophole--and because many States and localities 
simply did not use the Debbie Smith funds they were allocated--the 
promise of the Debbie Smith Act remains unfulfilled. Since 2004, the 
federal government has distributed about $500 millions in Debbie Smith 
grants to law enforcement agencies around the country. Local figures 
suggest that these funds have not had their intended effect. In March 
2009, Los Angeles County had 12,500 untested rape kits in police 
storage. L.A. County is not alone. This fall, the Houston Police 
Department found at least 4,000 untested rape kits in storage, and 
Detroit reported a backlog of possibly 10,000 kits.
  Those are just three cities. This means that potentially hundreds of 
thousands of rape kits are sitting, untested, in police departments and 
crime labs around the country. That is hundreds of thousands of women 
who have not seen justice. That is countless assailants still free and 
countless new assaults that have occurred because of this. The New York 
Times recently highlighted a case which occurred years after the 
passage of The Debbie Smith Act where a rapist struck twice while the 
rape kit for one of his earlier victims sat unprocessed at a State 
crime lab. Sadly, that lab's four month processing delay was one of the 
shortest in the state.
  When rape kits are not tested, rapists are not caught. When rape kits 
are not tested, more women are raped. Having a backlog of thousands of 
kits endangers our communities and sends a clear message to 
perpetrators and survivors of sexual violence: that cases of sexual 
assault are not a priority. Unfortunately, because our Nation lacks any 
mechanism to track rape kit backlogs, we have no way of knowing the 
full scope of this rape kit backlog and the national tragedy that it 
causes.
  The Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009, which I am 
introducing today with Senator Grassley, Senator Feinstein, and Senator 
Hatch, addresses the national rape kit backlog and several other 
problems that work to deny justice to survivors of sexual assault. 
These include the denial of free rape kits to survivors of sexual 
assault, and the shortage of trained health professionals capable of 
administering rape kit exams.
  First, this bill will create strong financial incentives for states 
to clear their rape kit backlogs once and for all. This bill will 
reward states who make progress in clearing up their rape kit backlog 
and start processing their incoming rape kits in a timely manner. It 
will penalize those that don't, while allowing them the opportunity to 
regain any lost funds. Having a backlog is not an impossible situation 
to remedy. In just a few years, the city of New York cleaned up their 
rape kit backlog, and as a result, saw its arrest rate for rapes jump 
from 40 to 70 percent.
  Second, this bill will put measures in place to track progress and 
hold States and localities accountable. Law enforcement agencies will 
be responsible for reporting their reductions of rape kit backlogs, and 
the Department of Justice will be responsible for analyzing that data 
and reporting back to Congress.
  Third, this bill will guarantee that survivors of sexual assault 
don't ever pay for their rape kits. Right now, States must cover the 
full cost of a rape kit examination, either upfront or through 
reimbursement. But some states don't even cover half of the cost. 
Survivors who live in States who are in compliance with the law still 
mistakenly receive bills because of the confusing nature of the 
reimbursement process. We don't bill criminals for fingerprint 
processing. Survivors of sexual assault should never see the bill for 
their rape kit exam, let alone pay any upfront costs.
  Fourth, this bill will train more health professionals to administer 
rape kit exams. If survivors of sexual assault are lucky enough to have 
their rape kit processed, it is important to ensure it is not declared 
inadmissible in court due to faulty evidence collection.
  Lastly, this bill will provide funds for a study on the availability 
of trained health professionals to administer rape kit exams at Indian 
Health Services facilities. Recent studies have shown that Native 
American women suffer a disproportionately high amount of sexual 
violence, and we need to make sure that IHS has the proper resources it 
needs to serve survivors.
  We have waited too long to address the rape kit backlog in the United 
States to the detriment of survivors and our communities. It is time to 
aggressively clear rape kit backlogs and put rapists where they belong: 
off our streets and behind bars. With the Federal Government beginning 
to collect more DNA samples from convicted, non-violent offenders and 
dozens of State governments following its lead inaction now would mean 
that rape kits wait longer on the shelf, rape survivors wait longer for 
justice, and rapists spend more time on the streets.
  Survivors of sexual assault do not deserve this. They deserve 
justice. I want to continue Congress's work in trying to address this 
issue. In doing so, I follow in the footsteps of people like Vice 
President Biden and Chairman Leahy, who have consistently and 
powerfully championed sexual assault survivors within the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate.
  I ask that my colleagues join Senator Grassley, Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Hatch, and me in supporting the Justice for Survivors of Sexual 
Assault Act of 2009.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S11214]]

  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2736

       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 for Survivors of 
     Sexual Assault Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Rape is a serious problem in the United States.
       (2) The Department of Justice reports that in 2006, there 
     were an estimated 261,000 rapes and sexual assaults, and 
     studies show only \1/3\ of rapes are reported.
       (3) The collection and testing of DNA evidence is a 
     critical tool in solving rape cases. Law enforcement 
     officials using the Combined DNA Index System have matched 
     unknown DNA evidence taken from crime scenes with known 
     offender DNA profiles in the State and National DNA database 
     2,371 times.
       (4) Despite the availability of funding under the 
     amendments made by the Debbie Smith Act of 2004 (title II of 
     Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2266) there exists a 
     significant rape kit backlog in the United States.
       (5) A 1999 study commissioned by the National Institute of 
     Justice estimated that there was an annual backlog of 180,000 
     rape kits that had not been analyzed.
       (6) No agency regularly collects information regarding the 
     scope of the rape kit backlog in the United States.
       (7) Certain States cap reimbursement for rape kits at 
     levels that are less than \1/2\ the average cost of a rape 
     kit in those States. Yet, section 2010 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796gg-4) requires that in order to be eligible for grants 
     under part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) (commonly known as 
     ``STOP Grants'') States shall administer rape kits to 
     survivors free of charge or provide full reimbursement.
       (8) There is a lack of sexual assault nurse examiners and 
     health professionals who have received specialized training 
     specific to sexual assault victims.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to seek appropriate means to 
     address the problems surrounding forensic evidence collection 
     in cases of sexual assault, including rape kit backlogs, 
     reimbursement for or free provision of rape kits, and the 
     availability of trained health professionals to administer 
     rape kit examinations.

     SEC. 4. RAPE KIT BACKLOGS.

       (a) Additional Protocol Requirement for Receiving Edward 
     Byrne Grants.--Section 502 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3752) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) A certification that the applicant has implemented a 
     policy requiring all rape kits collected by or on behalf of 
     the applicant to be sent to crime laboratories for forensic 
     analysis.''.
       (b) Additional Debbie Smith Grant Requirements; 
     Definitions.--Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``samples from rape 
     kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples 
     taken in cases without an identified suspect.'' and inserting 
     ``to eliminate a rape kit backlog and to ensure that DNA 
     analyses of samples from rape kits are carried out in a 
     timely manner.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) if the State or unit of local government has a rape 
     kit backlog, include a plan to eliminate the rape kit backlog 
     that includes performance measures to assess progress of the 
     State or local unit of government toward a 50 percent 
     reduction in the rape kit backlog over a 2-year period; and
       ``(9) specify the portion of the amounts made available 
     under the grant under this section that the State or unit of 
     local government shall use for the purpose of DNA analyses of 
     samples from untested rape kits.'';
       (3) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) the amount of funds from a grant under this section 
     expended for the purposes of DNA analyses for untested rape 
     kits; and''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Rape kit.--The term `rape kit' means DNA evidence 
     relating to--
       ``(A) sexual assault (as defined in section 40002(a) of the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a))); or
       ``(B) conduct described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of 
     chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of 
     whether the conduct affects interstate commerce.
       ``(2) Rape kit backlog.--The term `rape kit backlog' means 
     untested rape kits that are in the possession or control of--
       ``(A) a law enforcement agency; or
       ``(B) a public or private crime laboratory.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, 
     and the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(4) Untested rape kit.--The term `untested rape kit' 
     means a rape kit collected from a victim that--
       ``(A) has not undergone forensic analysis; and
       ``(B) for a combined total of not less than 60 days, has 
     been in the possession or control of--
       ``(i) a law enforcement agency; or
       ``(ii) a public or private crime laboratory.''.
       (c) Adjusting Byrne Grant Funds for Compliance and 
     Noncompliance; Statistical Review.--Section 505 of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3755) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Adjusting Byrne Grant Funds for Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection the term `date for 
     implementation' means the last day of the second fiscal year 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Additional funds for compliance.--
       ``(A) Reduction of rape kit backlog.--
       ``(i) 50 percent reduction.--For any fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, a State or 
     unit of local government shall receive an allocation under 
     this section in an amount equal to 110 percent of the 
     otherwise applicable allocation to the State or unit of local 
     government if the State or unit of local government reduced 
     the rape kit backlog by not less than 50 percent, as compared 
     to the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(ii) 75 percent reduction.--For any fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection--

       ``(I) a State or unit of local government that has received 
     additional funds under clause (i) in any previous fiscal year 
     shall receive an allocation under this section in an amount 
     equal to 110 percent of the otherwise applicable allocation 
     to the State or unit of local government if the State or unit 
     of local government reduced the rape kit backlog by not less 
     than 75 percent, as compared to the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(II) a State or unit of local government that has not 
     received additional funds under clause (i) in any previous 
     fiscal year shall receive an allocation under this section in 
     an amount equal to 120 percent of the otherwise applicable 
     allocation to the State or unit of local government if the 
     State or unit of local government reduced the rape kit 
     backlog by not less than 75 percent, as compared to the date 
     of enactment of this subsection.

       ``(iii) 95 percent reduction.--For any fiscal year 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this subsection--

       ``(I) a State or unit of local government that has received 
     additional funds under clause (ii) in any previous fiscal 
     year shall receive an allocation under this section in an 
     amount equal to 110 percent of the otherwise applicable 
     allocation to the State or unit of local government if the 
     State or unit of local government reduced the rape kit 
     backlog by not less than 95 percent, as compared to the date 
     of enactment of this subsection;
       ``(II) a State or unit of local government that has 
     received additional funds under clause (i) in any previous 
     fiscal year, and has not received additional funds under 
     clause (ii) in any previous fiscal year, shall receive an 
     allocation under this section in an amount equal to 120 
     percent of the otherwise applicable allocation to the State 
     or unit of local government if the State or unit of local 
     government reduced the rape kit backlog by not less than 95 
     percent, as compared to the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(III) a State or unit of local government that has not 
     received additional funds under clause (i) or (ii) in any 
     previous fiscal year shall receive an allocation under this 
     section in an amount equal to 130 percent of the otherwise 
     applicable allocation to the State or unit of local 
     government if the State or unit of local government reduced 
     the rape kit backlog by not less than 95 percent, as compared 
     to the date of enactment of this subsection.

       ``(B) Timely processing.--For the first fiscal year 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this subsection, and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, a State or unit of local 
     government that, during the previous fiscal year, tested 95 
     percent of all rape kits collected from a victim during that 
     previous fiscal year not later than 60 days after the date 
     the rape kit was taken into the possession or control of a 
     law enforcement agency of the State or unit of local 
     government shall receive an allocation under this section in 
     an amount equal to 105 percent of the otherwise applicable 
     allocation to the State or unit of local government.
       ``(3) Withholding of grant funds for noncompliance.--
       ``(A) Failure to reduce rape kit backlog.--
       ``(i) Year 1.--For the first fiscal year after the date for 
     implementation, a State or unit of local government shall 
     receive an allocation under this section in an amount equal

[[Page S11215]]

     to 90 percent of the otherwise applicable allocation to the 
     State or unit of local government if the State or unit of 
     local government--

       ``(I) has a rape kit backlog;
       ``(II) received a grant under this subpart during each of 
     the 2 previous fiscal years; and
       ``(III) has failed to reduce the rape kit backlog by not 
     less than 50 percent, as compared to the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.

       ``(ii) Year 3.--For the third fiscal year beginning after 
     the date for implementation, a State or unit of local 
     government shall receive an allocation under this section in 
     an amount equal to 90 percent of the otherwise applicable 
     allocation to the State or unit of local government if the 
     State or unit of local government--

       ``(I) has a rape kit backlog;
       ``(II) received a grant under this subpart during the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       ``(III) has failed to reduce the rape kit backlog by not 
     less than 75 percent, as compared to the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.

       ``(iii) Years 5, 7, and 9.--For each of the fifth, seventh, 
     and ninth fiscal years beginning after the date for 
     implementation, a State or unit of local government shall 
     receive an allocation under this section in an amount equal 
     to 90 percent of the otherwise applicable allocation to the 
     State or unit of local government if the State or unit of 
     local government--

       ``(I) has a rape kit backlog;
       ``(II) received a grant under this subpart during the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       ``(III) has failed to reduce the rape kit backlog by not 
     less than 95 percent, as compared to the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.

       ``(B) Timely processing.--For the second fiscal year 
     beginning after the date for implementation, and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, a State or unit of local government that, 
     during the previous fiscal year, tested less than 95 percent 
     of the rape kits collected from a victim during that previous 
     fiscal year not later than 90 days after the date the rape 
     kit was taken into the possession or control of a law 
     enforcement agency of the State or unit of local government 
     shall receive an allocation under this section in an amount 
     equal to 95 percent of the otherwise applicable allocation to 
     the State or unit of local government.
       ``(j) Annual Statistical Review and Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice of the Department of Justice (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `Director') shall conduct an annual 
     comprehensive statistical review of the number of untested 
     rape kits collected by Federal, State, local, and tribal law 
     enforcement agencies.
       ``(2) Report of data to director.--Each law enforcement 
     agency of the Federal Government or of a State or unit of 
     local government receiving a grant under this subpart (in 
     this subsection referred to as a `covered law enforcement 
     agency') shall record and report to the Director the number 
     of untested rape kits administered by or on behalf of, or in 
     the possession or control of, the covered law enforcement 
     agency at the end of each fiscal year.
       ``(3) Report to congress and the states.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, and annually 
     thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress and the 
     States a report regarding the number of untested rape kits 
     administered by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, a 
     covered law enforcement agency.
       ``(B) Subsequent annual reports.--The Director shall 
     include, in the second report, under subparagraph (A), and 
     each subsequent report, the percentage change in the number 
     of untested rape kits for each covered law enforcement 
     agency, as compared to the previous year.
       ``(4) Penalty.--For fiscal year 2011, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, if a State or unit of local government has 
     received a grant under this subpart, and a covered law 
     enforcement agency of the State or local government has 
     failed to report the data required under paragraph (2), the 
     State or unit of local government shall receive an allocation 
     under this section in an amount equal to 95 percent of the 
     otherwise applicable allocation to the State or unit of local 
     government.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Rape kit.--The term `rape kit' means DNA evidence 
     relating to--
       ``(A) sexual assault (as defined in section 40002(a) of the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a))); or
       ``(B) conduct described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of 
     chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of 
     whether the conduct affects interstate commerce.
       ``(2) Rape kit backlog.--The term `rape kit backlog' means 
     untested rape kits that are in the possession or control of--
       ``(A) a law enforcement agency; or
       ``(B) a public or private crime laboratory.
       ``(3) Untested rape kit.--The term `untested rape kit' 
     means a rape kit collected from a victim that--
       ``(A) has not undergone forensic analysis; and
       ``(B) for a combined total not less than 60 days, has been 
     in the possession or control of--
       ``(i) a law enforcement agency; or
       ``(ii) a public or private crime laboratory.''.

     SEC. 5. RAPE KIT BILLING.

       (a) Coordination With Regional Health Care Providers.--
     Section 2010(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4(a)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``assault.'' and inserting ``assault and 
     coordinates with regional health care providers to notify 
     victims of sexual assault of the availability of rape exams 
     at no cost to the victims.''.
       (b) Repeal of Reimbursement Option.--Effective 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, section 2010(b) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3);
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or'' after 
     ``victim;''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``victims; or'' and 
     inserting ``victims.''.
       (c) Provision of Rape Kits Regardless of Cooperation With 
     Law Enforcement.--Section 2010(d) of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
     4(d)) is amended by striking ``(d) Rule of Construction'' and 
     all that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Noncooperation.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State, Indian tribal government, or 
     unit of local government shall not be in compliance with this 
     section unless the State, Indian tribal government, or unit 
     of local government complies with subsection (b) without 
     regard to whether the victim cooperates with the law 
     enforcement agency investigating the offense.''.

     SEC. 6. SEXUAL ASSAULT NURSE EXAMINER TRAINING.

       (a) Definition.--Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (29) through (37) as 
     paragraphs (30) through (38), respectively; and
       (2) inserting after paragraph (28) the following:
       ``(29) Trained examiner.--The term `trained examiner' means 
     a health care professional who has received specialized 
     training specific to sexual assault victims, including 
     training regarding gathering forensic evidence and medical 
     needs.''.
       (b) Additional Personnel.--Section 2101(b) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796hh(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14) To provide for sexual assault forensic medical 
     personnel examiners to collect and preserve evidence, provide 
     expert testimony, and provide treatment of trauma relating to 
     sexual assault.''.

     SEC. 7. SEXUAL ASSAULT NURSE AVAILABILITY AT INDIAN HEALTH 
                   SERVICES STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the availability of sexual assault 
     nurse examiners and trained examiners (as defined in section 
     40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     13925(a)), as amended by this Act), at all Indian Health 
     Service facilities operated pursuant to contracts under the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450 et seq.).
       (b) Report and Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 
     Senate and to the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing the findings of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), and recommendations for 
     improving the availability of sexual assault nurse examiners 
     and trained examiners (as defined in section 40002(a) of the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)), as 
     amended by this Act).
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
Lieberman, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 2737. A bill to relocate to Jerusalem the United States Embassy in 
Israel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Jerusalem 
Embassy Relocation Act of 2009. My colleagues and I have sponsored this 
important piece of legislation in order to pave the way for the United 
States to correct a longstanding and--I believe--dangerous deficiency 
in our diplomatic relations and foreign policy. For too long, our 
embassy in Israel has been located in a different city than Jerusalem, 
which is the capital of Israel according to longstanding Israeli and 
American law and practice. The time has come to remove the barriers 
that have encouraged this state of affairs to continue, and that is 
precisely what this legislation will do, by repealing the waiver 
included in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that has

[[Page S11216]]

been abused by the Executive Branch for 14 years.
  Jerusalem is the spiritual center of the Jewish faith. First 
conquered by King David more than 3000 years ago, there has always been 
a Jewish presence there, a fact attested to by incalculable 
archaeological evidence. Although at various times the Jewish people 
lost sovereignty in the land of Israel--to the Babylonians, Greeks, 
Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, British--Jerusalem has never served as 
the capital of any other political or religious entity in history. In 
every year during the nearly two thousand year exile in 70 A.D., Jews 
around the world concluded their Passover seder with the phrase, ``Next 
Year in Jerusalem.'' Despite the depths of despair to which the Jewish 
people descended throughout their long exile, Jerusalem always remained 
at the center of Jewish religious life.
  Since 1950, just two years after the miraculous rebirth of the State 
of Israel, Jerusalem has served as Israel's capital. The seat of 
Parliament, Prime Minister's residence, and Supreme Court, all reside 
there, in addition to numerous ministries and government buildings. 
American officials conduct business with Israeli officials in 
Jerusalem, in de facto recognition of the status of the city. The 
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed into law by an overwhelming vote 
of Congress, stated unequivocally as a matter of United States policy 
that ``Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of 
Israel,'' and ``the United States Embassy in Israel should be 
established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
  This is our policy, yet for some reason our embassy remains in Tel 
Aviv. This is despite the fact that the government of Israel many times 
has declared Jerusalem to be the eternal and undivided capital of 
Israel, a policy reflected in American law. Such a state of affairs 
constitutes an ongoing affront to the people of Israel who, under 
international law, have the sovereign right to choose the location of 
their capital. It also harms the interests of American citizens living 
in Israel, who face procedural and substantive harm as a result of the 
confusing diplomatic structure that has arisen in place of a Jerusalem 
embassy.
  The failure of the State Department to relocate the embassy is not 
only inconvenient and inefficient, but also is dangerous. The State 
Department's refusal to acknowledge clear U.S. law and policy 
radicalizes Israel's opponents by creating the false hope that the U.S. 
would support the division of Jerusalem. Were the embassy to be moved 
to Jerusalem, and Israel's capital respected in both American law and 
in practice, then Palestinians and Arab governments would have no 
choice but to accept the unchanging reality of Jerusalem, which is that 
Israel, regardless of the political party or government in power, will 
not move its capital away from this city.
  I and my fellow sponsors of this legislation recognize that the 
Executive Branch generally has discretion over diplomatic arrangements. 
However, when a waiver included for the limited purpose of national 
security becomes perfunctory and contradicts the clear will of the 
Congress, the time has come to reevaluate the wisdom of such a waiver. 
This bill simply restores the statutory effect of the Jerusalem Embassy 
Act, updating the timeline of fiscal years required for action, but 
without the waiver.
  I urge my colleagues to support this necessary and appropriate 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2738. A bill to authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to 
establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and 
justice for all during the American Revolution; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National 
Liberty Memorial Act, a bill I am introducing with my colleague Senator 
Grassley. This important legislation would authorize the construction 
of a memorial in Washington, DC honoring the African American patriots 
who fought in the Revolutionary War.
  For too long, the role these brave Americans played in the founding 
of our Nation has been relegated to the dusty back pages of history. 
Fortunately, historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten 
heroism, and they estimate that more than 5,000 slaves and free blacks 
fought in the army, navy, and militia during the Revolutionary War. 
They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord 
to Yorktown, fighting side by side with white soldiers. More than 400 
of these brave Americans hailed from my home state of Connecticut.
  More than 20 years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black 
Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian 
assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to 
courts or legislatures for their freedom. Unfortunately, the group 
originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was 
unable to conclude its task, and there remains no memorial to the 
important, and too often unacknowledged, contributions made by these 
5,000 Americans.
  But a group of committed citizens has formed the Liberty Fund DC to 
complete this memorial and ensure that these patriots receive the 
tribute they deserve here in our Nation's capital. I am honored to work 
alongside them in completing this mission.
  The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the 
African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my 
colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL, of New Mexico:
  S. 2741. A bill to establish telehealth pilot projects, expand access 
to stroke telehealth services under the Medicare program, improve 
access to ``store-and-forward'' telehealth services in facilities of 
the Indian Health Service and Federally qualified health centers, 
reimburse facilities of the Indian Health Service as originating sites, 
establish regulations to consider credentialing and privileging 
standards for originating sites with respect to receiving telehealth 
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, access to quality, affordable 
health care is an issue that impacts every American across our country. 
Whether someone is struggling to find coverage for themselves or their 
family members, or searching in vain for a doctor who is accepting new 
patients, or giving advice to a friend who has just lost his job and, 
and as a result, his health insurance, no American is spared.
  These problems hit particularly hard in America's rural communities. 
Residents there are more likely to be uninsured than their urban 
counterparts, have higher rates of chronic disease, and are often 
forced to travel hundreds of miles for preventive or emergency care, if 
they can find it at all.
  As we continue moving forward with health care reform, we must make 
sure we do not leave our rural communities behind. In my home State of 
New Mexico, for example, 30 of our 33 counties are designated as 
medically underserved. That is why I am please to introduce the Rural 
TECH Act of 2009, Rural Telemedicine Enhancing Community Health. 
Through this legislation, I propose that we use technology to connect 
experts with providers, facilities and patients in rural areas, and to 
extend critical health care services to underserved areas across the 
country.
  Telehealth technology can help diagnose and treat patients, provide 
education and training, and conduct community-based research. It uses 
video-conferencing, the Internet, and handheld mobile devices to 
provide consultation and case reviews, direct patient care and 
coordinate support groups, for example. There are many benefits with 
telehealth, including increased access to education and care, such as 
connecting remote generalists to urban specialists. This knowledge 
bridge will help remote areas retain health care providers, and improve 
the continuity of care. it also would allow patients to stay in their 
homes and communities, rather than spend precious time and money to 
travel for treatment and care. In New Mexico, Dr. Steve Adelsheim at 
the University of New Mexico has been using telehealth during the past 
few months to provide therapy to a Navajo teenager who is at high risk 
of suicide.

[[Page S11217]]

  My bill would create three telehealth pilot projects, expand access 
to stroke telehealth services, and improve access to ``store-and-
forward'' telehealth services in Indian Health Service, IHS, and 
Federally Qualified Health Centers, FQHCs. I'd like to tell you a bit 
about each today.
  First, the creation of three telehealth pilot projects. These 
projects would analyze tie clinical heath outcomes and cost-
effectiveness of telehealth systems in medically underserved and tribal 
areas. The first pilot project focuses on using telehealth for 
behavioral health interventions, such as post traumatic stress 
disorder. A second pilot project focuses on increasing the capacity of 
health care workers to provide health services in rural areas, using 
knowledge networks like New Mexico's Project ECHO. And lastly, I am 
proposing a pilot project for stroke rehabilitation using telehealth 
technology.

  Second, we will expand access to telehealth services for strokes, a 
leading cause of death and long-term disability. Travel time to 
hospitals and shortages of neurologists--especially in rural areas--are 
among the barriers to stroke treatment. However, Primary Stroke Centers 
are not accessible for much of the population. For example, there is 
only one certified Primary Stroke Center in my State, at the University 
of New Mexico Hospital. This bill would connect many more residents 
with needed services. In New Mexico alone, there are almost 173,000 
Medicare beneficiaries who would gain access to telestroke services.
  Third, we will improve access to store-and-forward telehealth 
services. These services allow rural health facilities to hold and 
share transmission of medical training, diagnostic information and 
other data, which is important for remote areas. This bill also would 
allow IHS facilities to be reimbursed as users of telehealth services. 
Finally, it would establish regulations for credentialing and 
privileging telehealth providers at rural sites, saving important 
resources and time as they accept telehealth services from an area of 
specialty.
  I am pleased to note that my bill is supported by the University of 
New Mexico Center for Telehealth and Cybermedicine Research, the 
American Telemedicine Association, and the Telehealth Leadership 
Initiative. In addition, it is supported by the New Mexico Stroke 
Advisory Committee, the American Heart Association/American Stroke 
Association, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Physical 
Therapy Association, the American Occupational Therapy Association, and 
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. I want to thank each 
of these groups for their support and encouragement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Webb, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms. 
        Landrieu):
  S. 2743. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces 
who served honorably during the Cold War, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Webb, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Cold War 
Medal Act of 2009. This legislation would provide the authority for the 
secretaries of the military departments to award Cold War Service 
Medals to the courageous American patriots who for nearly half-a-
century defended the Nation, and indeed, freedom-loving peoples 
throughout the world, against the advance of communist ideology.
  From the end of World War II to dissolution of the Soviet Union in 
1991, the Cold War veterans were in the vanguard of this Nation's 
defenses. They manned the missile silos, ships, and aircraft, on ready 
alert status or on far off patrols, or demonstrated their resolve in 
hundreds of exercises and operations worldwide. The commitment, 
motivation, and fortitude of the Cold War Veterans was second to none.
  Astonishingly, no medal exists to recognize the dedication of our 
patriots who so nobly stood watch in the cause of promoting world 
peace. Although there have been instances where medals or ribbons, such 
as the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, 
and Vietnam Service Medal, have been issued, the vast majority of Cold 
War Veterans did not receive any medal to pay tribute to their 
dedication and patriotism during this extraordinary period in American 
history. It is only fitting that these brave servicemembers who served 
honorably during this era receive the recognition for their efforts in 
the form of the Cold War Service Medal.
  Specifically, the Cold War Service Medal Act of 2009 would allow the 
Defense Department to issue a Cold War Service Medal to any honorably 
discharged veteran who served on active duty for not less than two 
years or was deployed for thirty days or more during the period from 
September 2, 1945, to December 26, 1991. In the case of those veterans 
who are now deceased, the medal could be issued to their family or 
representative, as determined by the Defense Department. The bill would 
also express the sense of Congress that the secretary of Defense should 
expedite the design of the medal and expedite the establishment and 
implementation mechanisms to facilitate the issuance of the Cold War 
Service Medal.
  The award of the Cold War Service Medal is supported by the American 
Cold War Veterans, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
and many other veterans' services organizations.
  With November 9, 2009, the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin 
Wall which marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, quickly 
approaching, Senator Webb, Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, and I 
invite our colleagues to cosponsor this significant legislation to 
honor our Cold War Veterans.

                          ____________________