[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4213-S4224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 3408. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land 
in and around historic mining townsites located in the State of Nevada, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator 
Ensign to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act of 2010. 
The residents of the towns Ione and Gold Point in Nevada have asked for 
our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that have seriously 
affected these communities for decades. This bill would convey 682 
acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, Tonopah Field 
Office to clear up decades old confusion over property ownership in 
these two historic mining towns.
  Ione and Gold Point were founded in central Nevada during the last 
half of the nineteenth century. Like other early towns in Nevada, they 
endured the boom and bust cycle so common to mining camps. A very long 
time ago both of these towns were surveyed and approved for townships, 
but through some misfortune the proof of patent was never recorded by 
the U.S. Government Land Office and title for the land was never 
transferred. Nevertheless, these towns have been continuously occupied 
for over 100 years.
  Many residents in Ione and Gold Point live on the same land that 
their families settled on decades earlier. These citizens have paid 
their property taxes and made improvements to their properties. They 
have rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones. Regrettably, 
the historical documents by which these citizens claim possession do 
not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating lawful ownership of 
their properties. Because these documents are legally insufficient and 
have been deemed invalid, the BLM retains legal ownership of the land. 
Thus, the BLM has determined that these residents of Ione and Gold 
Point and their homes are in trespass on Federal land.
  This situation is untenable. Local residents, the counties, and the 
BLM recognize that many of these citizens have substantial rights to 
the lands in question; however, there is no readily available procedure 
by which the BLM can adjudicate their claims. This puts the BLM at odds 
with the local residents and the county governments. It also impedes 
efforts to improve basic community services such as fire protection, 
and water supply and treatment facilities.
  In the simplest terms, our legislation will convey any unencumbered 
property rights in the contested townsites to the counties and in turn 
the counties will use the procedures outlined in the 2001 state mining 
townsite law to consider residents' property claims and pass these 
lands to the rightful owners.

[[Page S4214]]

In order to accomplish the transfer of the townsites, this bill 
establishes a process for the BLM to determine the validity of any 
existing mining claims in Ione and Gold Point and to convey to the 
counties all surface ownership rights and any subsurface rights not 
subject to valid mining claims. Valid mining claims will not be 
conveyed to the counties, but they will be subject to various 
restrictions designed to protect the home owners in Ione and Gold 
Point.
   I would like to thank Nye and Esmeralda counties, the Nevada State 
Legislature, the Bureau of Land Management, and the residents of Ione 
and Gold Point for their cooperation and hard work in resolving this 
complex problem. We are pleased to bring this legislation to the 
committee and we look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, 
Ranking Member Murkowski and the other distinguished members to move 
this bill through the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3408

       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 ``Nevada Mining Townsite 
     Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LAND IN MINING TOWNSITES, 
                   ESMERALDA AND NYE COUNTIES, NEVADA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Government owns real property in and around 
     historic mining townsites in the counties of Esmeralda and 
     Nye in the State of Nevada;
       (2) while the real property described in paragraph (1) is 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, some of the real 
     property has been occupied for decades by individuals--
       (A) who took possession by purchase or other documented and 
     putatively legal transactions; and
       (B) the continued occupation by whom constitutes a trespass 
     on the title held by the Federal Government;
       (3) as a result of the confused and conflicting ownership 
     claims, the real property described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) is difficult to manage under multiple use policies; and
       (B) creates a continuing source of friction and unease 
     between the Federal Government and local residents;
       (4)(A) all of the real property described in paragraph (1) 
     is appropriate for disposal for the purpose of promoting 
     administrative efficiency and effectiveness; and
       (B) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of 
     Land Management has identified the mining townsites for 
     disposal; and
       (5) to promote the responsible resource management of the 
     real property described in paragraph (1), certain parcels 
     should be conveyed to the county in which the property is 
     situated in accordance with land use management plans of the 
     Bureau of Land Management so that the county may, in addition 
     to other actions, dispose of the property to individuals 
     residing on or otherwise occupying the real property.
       (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Conveyance maps.--The term ``conveyance maps'' means--
       (A) the map entitled ``Original Mining Townsite Ione 
     Nevada'' and dated October 17, 2005; and
       (B) the map entitled ``Original Mining Townsite Gold 
     Point'' and dated October 17, 2005.
       (2) Mining townsite.--The term ``mining townsite'' means 
     real property--
       (A) located in the Gold Point and Ione townsites within the 
     counties of Esmeralda and Nye, Nevada, as depicted on the 
     conveyance maps;
       (B) that is owned by the Federal Government; and
       (C) on which improvements were constructed based on the 
     belief that--
       (i) the property had been or would be acquired from the 
     Federal Government by the entity that operated the mine; or
       (ii) the individual or entity that made the improvement had 
     a valid claim for acquiring the property from the Federal 
     Government.
       (D) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (c) Mining Claim Validity Review.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out an 
     expedited program to examine each unpatented mining claim 
     (including each unpatented mining claim for which a patent 
     application has been filed) within each mining townsite.
       (2) Determination of validity.--With respect to a mining 
     claim, if the Secretary determines that the elements of a 
     contest are present, the Secretary shall immediately 
     determine the validity of the mining claim.
       (3) Declaration by secretary.--If the Secretary determines 
     a mining claim to be invalid, as soon as practicable after 
     the date of the determination, the Secretary shall declare 
     the mining claim to be null and void.
       (4) Treatment of valid mining claims.--
       (A) In general.--Each mining claim that the Secretary 
     determines to be valid shall be maintained in compliance with 
     the general mining laws and subsection (d)(2)(B).
       (B) Effect on holders.--A holder of a mining claim 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall not be entitled to a 
     patent.
       (5) Abandonment of claim.--The Secretary shall provide--
       (A) public notice that each mining claim holder may 
     affirmatively abandon the claim of the mining claim holder 
     prior to the validity review; and
       (B) to each mining claim holder an opportunity to abandon 
     the claim of the mining claim holder before the date on which 
     the land that is subject to the mining claim is conveyed.
       (d) Conveyance Authority.--
       (1) In general.--After completing a validity review under 
     subsection (c) and notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1712, 1713), the Secretary shall convey to the appropriate 
     county, without consideration, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to mining townsites (including 
     improvements on the mining townsites)--
       (A) identified for conveyance on the conveyance maps; and
       (B) that are not subject to valid mining claims.
       (2) Valid mining claims.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to each parcel of land 
     located in a mining townsite subject to a valid mining claim, 
     the Secretary shall reserve the mineral rights and otherwise 
     convey, without consideration, the remaining right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to the mining 
     townsite (including improvements on the mining townsite) that 
     is identified for conveyance on a conveyance map.
       (B) Procedures and requirements.--Each valid mining claim 
     shall be subject to each procedure and requirement described 
     in section 9 of the Act of December 29, 1916 (43 U.S.C. 299) 
     (commonly known as the ``Stockraising Homestead Act of 
     1916'') (including regulations).
       (3) Availability of conveyance maps.--The conveyance maps 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (e) Recipients.--
       (1) Original recipient.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     conveyance of a mining townsite under subsection (d) shall be 
     made to the county in which the mining townsite is situated.
       (2) Reconveyance to occupants.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a mining townsite conveyed 
     under subsection (d) for which a valid interest is proven by 
     1 or more individuals, under the provisions of Nevada Revised 
     Statutes Chapter 244, the county that receives the mining 
     townsite under paragraph (1) shall reconvey the property to 
     the 1 or more individuals by appropriate deed or other legal 
     conveyance as provided in that chapter.
       (B) Authority of county.--A county described in 
     subparagraph (A) is not required to recognize a claim under 
     this paragraph that is submitted on a date that is later than 
     5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Valid Existing Rights.--The conveyance of a mining 
     townsite under subsection (d) shall be subject to valid 
     existing rights, including any easement or other right-of-way 
     or lease in existence as of the date of the conveyance.
       (g) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid rights in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and except as otherwise 
     provided in this Act, the mining townsites are withdrawn 
     from--
       (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
       (h) Survey.--A mining townsite to be conveyed by the United 
     States under subsection (d) shall be sufficiently surveyed as 
     a whole to legally describe the land for patent conveyance.
       (i) Conveyance of Terminated Mining Claims.--If a mining 
     claim determined by the Secretary to be valid under 
     subsection (c) is abandoned, invalidated, or otherwise 
     returned to the Bureau of Land Management, the mining claim 
     shall be--
       (1) withdrawn in accordance with subsection (g); and
       (2) conveyed to the owner of the surface rights covered by 
     the mining claim.
       (j) Release.--On completion of the conveyance of a mining 
     townsite under subsection (d), the United States shall be 
     relieved from liability for, and shall be held harmless from, 
     any and all claims arising from the presence of improvements 
     and materials on the conveyed property.
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. 
        Gillibrand):

[[Page S4215]]

  S. 3412. A bill to provide emergency operating funds for public 
transportation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, millions of Americans rely on transit to go 
about their daily lives.
  Many of them are poor, elderly, or disabled.
  For some, transit is more than a convenience--it is absolutely vital.
  Unfortunately, in communities across the Nation, transit has become a 
casualty of the economic downturn.
  Service cuts, fare increases, and layoffs--the result of tight 
budgets nationwide--have become an epidemic, disconnecting people from 
their jobs, placing huge burdens on already disadvantaged populations, 
and reducing quality of life for millions of American families.
  The American Public Transportation Association recently found that 84 
percent of transit systems either have enacted or are contemplating 
fare hikes or reductions in service.
  The transit crisis is having an impact on the American people.
  In 2008, transit ridership reached 10.7 billion riders, the highest 
level since 1956 and a 38 percent increase since 1995.
  But last year, ridership fell by half a billion.
  This has serious implications for national priorities like reducing 
traffic congestion, addressing climate change, enhancing our energy 
security, and restoring our economic competitiveness.
  Of course, it has serious implications on the lives of ordinary 
Americans.
  Young people are finding it harder to get to school.
  Low-income families, forced to pay more for less service, are losing 
what is often their only option for getting to work.
  The elderly and disabled, robbed of their mobility, can't access 
health care facilities.
  Many who have long relied on transit are being forced to purchase 
cars, adding to congestion on our roads, pollution in our skies, and 
the economic burden already weighing heavy on working families.
  We need more transit service, not less.
  Now, my preference would be to pass a significant infrastructure and 
jobs bill, one that would invest billions in our infrastructure, our 
roadways, and our transit systems.
  That approach would create hundreds of thousands of good construction 
jobs while simultaneously making critical long-term investments in our 
nation's future productivity and economic growth.
  But even if we can't do that, we can't afford to turn our backs on 
the transit crisis.
  Therefore, today I rise to introduce the Public Transportation 
Preservation Act of 2010.
  This legislation will provide $2 billion in emergency funding to 
transit agencies across the nation so that we can minimize disruptions 
in service, fare increases, and layoffs.
  It is not nearly enough money to give America the transit system it 
needs and deserves.
  But I hope it will be enough to stop the bleeding and allow millions 
of Americans who rely on transit to maintain their ability to go to 
work, get to the doctor, and go about their daily lives without 
significant disruption.
  Senators Menendez, Durbin, Schumer, Lautenberg, Brown of Ohio, Reed, 
and Gillibrand have joined this bill as original co-sponsors.
  I thank them for their commitment to public transportation.
  I urge my colleagues to join us on behalf of those who rely on 
transit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 3414. A bill to ensure that the Dietary Supplement Health and 
Education Act of 1994 and other requirements for dietary supplements 
under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration are fully 
implemented and enforced, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joining with the distinguished 
senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Dietary 
Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010. Forty 
percent of Americans regularly take supplements--and I am one of them. 
We are taking charge of our own health. We are developing healthier 
habits. We are waking up to the fact that we don't live to eat, we eat 
to live--and we need to be mindful of what we put into our bodies.
  Countless people have told me how they have been helped by dietary 
supplements. Consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less 
expensive options. They don't want to just cure disease, they want to 
prevent disease. They want to feel good--and to look good.
  As you know, I have long championed the cause of health prevention, 
and I strongly believe that safe, properly labeled dietary supplements 
can be an important part of a healthy lifestyle. In 1994, I introduced 
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act--DSHEA--along with my 
good friend Senator Hatch, and we revolutionized the way that 
supplements are regulated and sold in the United States.
  DSHEA struck an important balance. On the one hand, it recognized the 
importance of enhancing consumer access to vitamins, minerals, and 
other dietary supplements, and it recognized the virtues of scientific 
research and education on the benefits and risk of supplements. On the 
other hand, it recognized the need for important regulatory safeguards 
to protect consumer health, including new safety standards, penalties 
for mislabeling or adulterating dietary supplements, and rules to 
ensure the scientific substantiation of claims regarding dietary 
supplements. As a result, over the last 15 years, Americans have 
enjoyed unprecedented access to a range of safe products that help 
improve their health.
  In 2006, Congress identified a need for additional regulatory 
safeguards, and we passed a law that requires manufacturers, packers, 
and distributors of dietary supplements to report to FDA serious 
adverse events associated with the use of supplements. Dietary 
supplement manufacturers are also now required to register their 
businesses with FDA under the BioTerrorism law we passed in 2002. S. 
510, the food safety legislation approved by the Senate HELP Committee 
last year, which I hope will soon be considered on the Senate floor, 
contains additional provisions that apply to dietary supplements. The 
legislation gives FDA the authority to revoke the registration of a 
dietary supplement facility in certain instances, and it authorizes FDA 
to initiate a mandatory recall of any food, including a dietary 
supplement, that will cause serious adverse health consequences or 
death.
  In short, Congress has been active in passing laws that promote 
access to dietary supplements, but also ensure those products are safe 
for their intended uses. I am proud of our record on this issue, and I 
believe we have established a regulatory framework that is in the best 
interest of the American people and their long term health.
  I am concerned, however, that not enough is being done to fully 
implement and enforce these dietary supplement laws. I am very pleased 
that FDA recently issued final regulations on current Good 
Manufacturing Practice for dietary supplements, but it took them nearly 
15 years to get those rules on the books. In the fall of 2004, FDA 
opened a docket and held a public meeting on new dietary ingredients, 
but it has still not produced guidance on that issue. Perhaps most 
alarming, there are still scores of illegal products being sold in this 
country that masquerade as dietary supplements. Some bad actors simply 
slap a dietary supplement label on illegal products in the hopes that 
the supplement label will help those products evade notice by FDA or 
the label will help promote sales. These products are clearly not 
dietary supplements and both consumers and the legitimate dietary 
supplement industry have a right to be upset about their sale. I am 
encouraged that President Obama's FDA has been sending Warning Letters 
on some of these illegal products, but more needs to be done. Part of 
the problem is that FDA's dietary supplement program has been under-
resourced. But part of the problem is that enforcement of DSHEA has not 
been made a priority.
  That is why I am proud to introduce the Dietary Supplement Full 
Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010. This is an updated version 
of a bill that Senator Hatch and I introduced in

[[Page S4216]]

the 108th Congress. I am grateful that the Senator from Utah joins me 
again today in introducing this important legislation. Its basic goal 
is to give FDA the resources it needs to fully implement and enforce 
our dietary supplement laws, but also to hold FDA accountable for what 
it does with those resources.
  According to FDA, full implementation of the laws governing the 
regulation of dietary supplement will require substantial additional 
resources. My bill authorizes FDA to receive the necessary sums to 
implement and enforce the law. It also authorizes the Office of Dietary 
Supplements at NIH to receive additional sums to expand research and 
development of consumer information on dietary supplements.
  On the implementation front, the bill requires FDA to issue guidance 
that clarifies for consumers and industry FDA's expectations with 
regard to its new dietary ingredient premarket notification program.
  On the enforcement front, the bill directs FDA to inspect facilities 
to ensure compliance with the new dietary supplement good manufacturing 
practice regulations; to use the authority under DSHEA to protect the 
public from unsafe dietary supplements; and to ensure that claims made 
for dietary supplements are truthful, non-misleading and substantiated. 
It also requires FDA to notify the Drug Enforcement Administration if 
FDA objects to a new dietary ingredient notification because the 
product may contain an anabolic steroid or an analogue of an anabolic 
steroid.
  On the accountability front, the bill requires the Secretary of the 
Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress that 
lists, among other things, how many people at FDA worked on supplement-
related issues in the prior years; the number of times FDA inspected 
dietary supplement facilities; the number of times FDA issued a warning 
letter or initiated an enforcement action because a manufacturer was 
not in compliance; the number of times FDA objected to the marketing of 
a new dietary ingredient; and the number of dietary supplement claims 
the FDA determined to be false, misleading, or not substantiated.
  The bottom line is that dietary supplements offer tremendous health 
benefits to Americans, but it is not fair to consumers, the FDA, or the 
people who make supplements if we don't take action to clarify our 
current regulatory requirements, to better inform everyone about the 
benefits and risk of these products, and to clear the market of the 
clearly illegal or spiked products that masquerade as supplements. The 
bill that Senator Hatch and I have developed is an important and 
measured response to these challenges. I am heartened that a number of 
organizations that are deeply concerned about these issues have 
endorsed our bill, including, among others, the United Natural Products 
Alliance, the Natural Products Association, the Council for Responsible 
Nutrition, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the American 
Herbal Products Association, the Major League Baseball Players 
Association, and the NFL Players Association. The bill recognizes the 
need to implement and enforce current law in this area rather than 
simply discard the important balance we struck in 1994. And it is 
grounded in the firm belief that safe, properly labeled dietary 
supplements remain a vital part of our collective effort to help all 
Americans improve their health.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and I are 
introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement 
Act of 2010, which is similar to the legislation we introduced in the 
108th Congress.
  Our goal in introducing this commonsense bill is to ensure that the 
Food and Drug Administration properly implements and enforces existing 
dietary supplement laws--namely the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health 
Education Act, DSHEA, and the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription 
Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006. This is important to protect the 
150,000,000 Americans who regularly take dietary supplements and to 
remove ``bad actor'' companies from the marketplace.
  This issue is extremely important because the laws already on the 
books are sufficient if the FDA has the resources and the will to fully 
enforce them. Indeed, previous FDA commissioners--Dr. Jane Henney, Dr. 
Mark McClellan, Dr. Lester Crawford and Dr. Andy von Eschenbach--have 
all stated as much in Senate hearings and in my meetings with them. 
Moreover, current FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has assured me 
that she will work with me to ensure these laws are enforced.
  Bottom line: the FDA already has the regulatory authority it needs 
under current law.
  That is why I will not support any changes to existing dietary 
supplement laws until the legislation we are introducing today has been 
approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the 
President. We also need to ensure this legislation is fully funded by 
this Congress and enforced by the FDA with the full backing of this 
Administration. It is important to give FDA the resources it needs to 
accomplish both tasks. The legislation that we are introducing today 
will do just that.
  Senator Harkin and I have asked our colleagues on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to provide the FDA with the funds it needs to 
fully implement DSHEA. We will continue to work diligently to help them 
succeed in that task.
  As you know, DSHEA clarified the FDA's regulatory authority over 
dietary supplements while ensuring that Americans will continue to have 
access to safe dietary supplements and helpful information about these 
products. It passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent. The 
legislation we are introducing today includes a Sense of the Congress 
and outlines the methods the FDA should use to better implement and 
enforce laws related to dietary supplements. It further requires the 
dietary supplement industry to redouble its efforts to comply with the 
law and cooperate with the FDA.
  To provide the FDA with the resources necessary to regulate 
compliance with dietary supplement laws, this bill directs the agency 
to use part of its 2010 Fiscal Year Budget for that purpose. It also 
authorizes the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary 
Supplements to expand research and develop more consumer information on 
dietary supplements.
  Furthermore, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) to submit an annual report to Congress, starting 
no later than January 31, 2011, regarding HHS activities on dietary 
supplements. Finally, it directs the FDA to issue its New Dietary 
Ingredient (NDI) guidance, as recommended by the General Accountability 
Office, within 180 days and requires the FDA to share any information 
on tainted NDI with the Drug Enforcement Agency.
  It is my sincere hope that all my colleagues will support this effort 
to ensure that dietary supplement consumers and manufacturers are 
protected and properly regulated. Our constituents deserve no less.
  This legislation is supported by the Major League Baseball and NFL 
players associations, the Natural Products Association, the United 
Natural Products Alliance, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American 
Herbal Products Association and the Consumer Health Care Products 
Association.
  I hope that each of you will see the wisdom in supporting this 
measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      NFL Players Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2010.
     Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman,
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: The issue of the 
     public disclosure--and regulation--of dietary supplements 
     remains a critically important concern to the NFLPA. As for 
     all professional athletes, professional football players rely 
     on supplement label information to educate themselves on the 
     nature of the ingredients contained therein. Without complete 
     and precise label disclosure of all ingredients contained in 
     a particular supplement, players can face sanctions--and even 
     career-ending sanctions--if unlisted ingredients would 
     violate League-Player drug-testing regimes.
       Thus, the Association welcomes the introduction of the 
     Dietary Supplement full implementation and enforcement act of 
     2010,

[[Page S4217]]

     which focuses on providing the FDA with sufficient resources 
     to play its role in overseeing the supplement marketplace.
       We endorse your legislation, salute your leadership, and 
     will work with you to realize enactment of this important 
     measure.
           Sincerely,
                                               DeMaurice F. Smith,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                             Major League Baseball


                                          Players Association,

                                       New York, NY, May 24, 2010.
     Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman,
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. 
         Senate, 428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: Over the last 
     several years, the Major League Baseball Players Association 
     has shared with you our concerns about the federal 
     government's regulation of dietary supplements. There are 
     still far too many supplements available in the United States 
     that contain pharmaceuticals, steroids and other dangerous 
     ingredients. And, too often, what is actually inside the 
     bottle is not listed on the label. This unfortunate reality 
     is especially problematic for professional athletes. Players 
     have been suspended, their careers jeopardized, for doing 
     nothing more than taking a supplement purchased at a national 
     nutrition store, only to learn later that the product 
     contained an ingredient not listed on the label that violated 
     drug testing protocols.
       The Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement 
     Act of 2010 will address one of the biggest obstacles to 
     improved safety--an overall lack of enforcement. We 
     understand your concern that imposing new obligations and 
     requirements on legitimate supplement companies alone will 
     not rid the marketplace of adulterated products. By providing 
     the FDA with both additional resources and increased 
     accountability, your legislation should help make possible a 
     goal we all share--a reliable supplement marketplace.
       The Association endorses the bill, and we look forward to 
     working with you throughout the legislative process on 
     additional measures to improve enforcement and ensure product 
     safety and label accuracy. Users of dietary supplements, be 
     they professional athletes or not, deserve the same promise 
     made to those who consume traditional food--the assurance 
     that the products they take, that are sold without 
     restriction to adults and children throughout the country, 
     are safe and the products' labels can be trusted.
           Sincerely,
     Michael S. Weiner.
                                  ____



                    Natural Products AssociationTM,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2010.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Natural 
     Products Association (NPA), I commend your leadership and 
     bipartisan efforts to craft sensible legislation that will 
     strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) ability 
     to fully enforce the current laws governing the regulation of 
     dietary supplements. Founded in 1936, NPA is the nation's 
     largest and oldest trade association dedicated to the natural 
     products industry, representing more than 10,000 retail, 
     manufacturing, wholesaler, and distribution outlets of 
     natural products, including dietary supplements, foods, and 
     health/beauty aids.
       NPA supports the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and 
     Enforcement Act of 2010 as it appropriately recognizes that 
     the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 
     1994 grants the FDA more than adequate statutory authority to 
     regulate supplements. While some have called for new 
     regulations on supplements, you understand that the real need 
     to fully enforce the statutes already on the books.
       Historically, concurrent with the passage of DSHEA, the FDA 
     experienced budget cuts, and lacked the resources to 
     effectively regulate all the industries under its watch. To 
     ensure that the FDA is able to carry out the law as Congress 
     intended, this legislation authorizes an increase in funding 
     for FDA to implement DSHEA. The Dietary Supplement Full 
     Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010 strengthens FDA's 
     ability to enforce DSHEA, tightens product-specific 
     enforcement, requires the release of the long-awaited New 
     Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, and holds the FDA 
     accountable for filing annual reports to Congress about how 
     they are regulating dietary supplements.
       Additionally we are supportive of the doubling of funding 
     given to the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) to expand 
     research and consumer information about dietary supplements. 
     An increase in funding for ODS is especially important 
     because dietary supplements come from natural ingredients and 
     cannot be patented. While this ensures that these products 
     are readily and affordably available, it takes away the 
     ability of manufacturers to recoup research costs.
       Again, we applaud your introduction of the Dietary 
     Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010, 
     and look forward to working with you in enacting this 
     important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                     John Gay,

                                            Executive Director and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                           United Natural Products


                                                     Alliance,

                                 Salt Lake City, UT, May 24, 2010.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: The United Natural 
     Products Alliance (UNPA), an association of dietary 
     supplement and functional food companies that share a 
     commitment to providing consumers with natural health 
     products of superior quality, benefit, and reliability, 
     wishes to express its appreciation to you for your work to 
     develop the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and 
     Enforcement Act of 2010. We are very supportive of this 
     legislation and of your continued hard work to ensure that 
     consumers have access to safe, high-quality dietary 
     supplements and information about those products.
       In 1994, you both led the effort to enact legislation that 
     would establish in law a rational and transparent framework 
     for the regulation of dietary supplements. As documented by 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the report 
     accompanying your bill, the Dietary Supplement Health and 
     Education Act (DSHEA) (S. 784), the Food and Drug 
     Administration had shown an animosity toward supplement 
     products through a series of divergent regulatory actions and 
     unpublished policies that consumers rightly concluded 
     threatened their access to supplement products. The 
     tremendous citizen reaction to those policies supported your 
     conclusion that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
     needed to be amended.
       DSHEA was passed, not once, but twice, by the Senate, and 
     once by the House of Representatives, all by unanimous 
     consent--testimony to the significance of this legislation. 
     In fact, when President Clinton signed DSHEA into law in 
     1994, he noted that ``In an era of greater consciousness 
     among people about the impact of what they eat on how they 
     live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we 
     have finally reformed the way government treats consumers and 
     these supplements in a way that encourages good health.''
       DSHEA had several important components, a few of which I 
     will mention in the context of your new legislation. First, 
     it established the simple principle that all dietary 
     supplements on the market in the United States at the time of 
     enactment would be presumed to be dietary supplements in the 
     future, unless there were violations of other parts of the 
     law. For new ingredients sold after that date, a manufacturer 
     was required to submit a ``New Dietary Ingredient'' (NDI) 
     notification to the FDA in advance of marketing. Second, as 
     part of DSHEA's numerous provisions to ensure the safety of 
     supplement products, the law authorized issuance of current 
     Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMPs) regulations specific to 
     supplements. The law established the requirements for 
     labeling, product claims and supporting substantiation. And, 
     it established at the National Institutes of Health an Office 
     of Dietary Supplements (ODS) to conduct research, provide 
     consumer information on supplements and act as an advisor to 
     other federal agencies.
       In the years following enactment of DSHEA, by any objective 
     measure, FDA was slow to implement the law. Very few warning 
     letters were issued. Very few enforcement actions were 
     taken--despite the fact that for many years you worked 
     together to provide FDA with additional resources to act 
     against products that were clearly violations of the law. The 
     cGMPs were not issued for 13 years--resulting in unwarranted 
     criticism that dietary supplements are ``not regulated''. 
     Likewise, uncertainty arose whether some products contained 
     old or new ingredients under the law, and guidance on New 
     Dietary Ingredients has not been forthcoming from FDA. This 
     must change.
       It has become clear that there has been a lack of 
     enforcement against clear violations of the law and that this 
     is largely due to two factors: a lack of focus by the agency; 
     and a competition for resources that has drained funding into 
     other areas. Your bill would rectify that situation and 
     return needed attention to appropriate implementation of 
     DSHEA and successor laws such as the 2006 Dietary Supplement 
     and Non-Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act. 
     Specifically, we find beneficial the provisions that would 
     provide Congress with a professional judgment estimate of the 
     costs to implement the laws addressing dietary supplement 
     regulation. This will allow Congress, and specifically the 
     Appropriations Committees, the ability to evaluate the 
     adequacy of the agency's funding and that of the Office of 
     Dietary Supplements. We also highlight the need for 
     provisions urging increased FDA efforts to conduct 
     inspections under the new cGMPs, evaluate claims 
     (prioritizing with those that are clear violations of the 
     law), promptly issuing guidance on NDIs, and notifying the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration if NDI notification suggests 
     that the substance may contain anabolic steroids or their 
     analogues which by definition are not dietary supplements. In 
     addition, the Annual Accountability Report on the Regulation 
     of Dietary

[[Page S4218]]

     Supplements which your bill would require will yield valuable 
     information showing the adequacy of dietary supplement 
     regulatory efforts.
       Finally, we recognize our responsibility as representatives 
     of the regulated industry to comply fully with the laws 
     regulating dietary supplements, and we pledge to continue our 
     efforts to work cooperatively with the government to develop 
     and implement rational policies that will assure American 
     consumers the safe products upon which they have come to 
     rely. As a central part of our mission, UNPA has made efforts 
     to educate ingredient suppliers, manufacturers and retailers 
     about key components of the dietary supplement laws and how 
     they should be implemented. We always strive to partner with 
     the government (including both the FDA and the Federal Trade 
     Commission) in these activities. Good examples of these 
     efforts are the numerous seminars we conduct, including five 
     focused specifically on the new cGMP regulations. We invite 
     you to review this in more detail at www.UNPA.org.
       Thank you for your leadership role on behalf of the 150 
     million Americans who regularly use dietary supplement 
     products.
           Sincerely,
                                               Loren D. Israelsen,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                            Council for Responsible Nutrition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2010.
     Re S. 3414--Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and 
         Enforcement Act

     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Council 
     for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and its members, I am writing 
     to express our support for S. 3414, the Dietary Supplement 
     Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010 (DSFIEA). We 
     want to thank you for your commitment to legislative and 
     regulatory initiatives that would help to fully fund, 
     implement and enforce the Dietary Supplement Health and 
     Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, and this legislation is an 
     example of your commitment to consumers and the dietary 
     supplement industry to assure access to safe and beneficial 
     supplement products. The work that you and your colleagues 
     have devoted to providing FDA with tools and resources to 
     reinforce its authority in regulating the supplement industry 
     under DSHEA is commendable and CRN stands in support of your 
     efforts.
       This legislation will help to ensure that the agency has 
     sufficient focus and resources at its disposal to implement a 
     law--DSHEA--which already provides FDA with ample authority 
     to ensure consumer safety, while still providing consumers 
     access to the products they seek. It will provide increased 
     funding for FDA, and in particular to the dietary supplement 
     programs within the Center for Food Safety & Applied 
     Nutrition (CFSAN). The legislation also directs the agency to 
     provide annual reports to Congress making itself accountable 
     for enforcing key provisions of the law, just as the industry 
     is responsible for complying with them. While some critics of 
     the dietary supplement industry have called for new laws to 
     change the way dietary supplements are regulated, this 
     legislation acknowledges that DSHEA carefully balanced 
     consumer access with consumer protection and seeks to make 
     the existing law work through real efforts to implement it. 
     Having more laws, without enforcement, only disadvantages the 
     responsible members of industry who do comply with the law 
     because it is the law and because it's the right thing to do 
     for their consumers, and gives rogue companies more laws to 
     violate. The better approach is to have a robust and 
     accountable FDA empowered and staffed to enforce the current 
     law that will level the playing field for all members of the 
     marketplace. As previous FDA Commissioners have testified to 
     Congress, DSHEA provides more than adequate authority for 
     government while still allowing consumers appropriate access 
     to the products and health information they demand.
       More than 150 million Americans use dietary supplements, 
     and these consumers demand a strong industry that is 
     appropriately regulated. We hope Congress will give this 
     legislation expedient and thoughtful consideration on its way 
     to passage. CRN stands ready to work with you and 
     Congressional leadership to deliver a strong bill to the 
     President.
       Please don't hesitate to contact me at SM[email protected] 
     or 202.204.7676 if CRN can be of any assistance in your 
     endeavors.
           Best regards,
                                                     Steve Mister,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                          American Herbal Products


                                                  Association,

                                  Silver Spring, MD, May 25, 2010.
     Senator Orrin Hatch,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Hatch and Harkin: This letter is to thank you 
     for introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation 
     and Enforcement Act of 2010 and to express the support of the 
     American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) for this 
     important legislation.
       AHPA recognizes that this bill will protect consumer access 
     to dietary supplements by providing the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) with better resources to enforce the 
     many regulations that govern this class of goods. The bill 
     will also instruct FDA to provide guidance on existing rules 
     that apply to new ingredients, and AHPA has long supported 
     full implementation of this section of the law so that 
     consumers are assured that all dietary supplements contain 
     only safe ingredients.
       Thank you again for your efforts in protecting the 
     important health care choices now enjoyed by the millions of 
     Americans who use dietary supplements.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael McGuffin,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Consumer Healthcare Products


                                           Association (CHPA),

                                                     May 25, 2010.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Consumer 
     Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), representing the 
     leading manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and 
     nutritional supplements, I am pleased to express our support 
     for the ``Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and 
     Enforcement Act of 2010.'' This bill is the most recent 
     example of your continued leadership in support of dietary 
     supplements.
       The ``Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and 
     Enforcement Act of 2010'' strengthens FDA's ability to 
     enforce the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act 
     (DSHEA), expands research, calls for the release of the long-
     awaited New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, and requires 
     the filing of an annual report to Congress on the 
     implementation and enforcement of DSHEA.
       Critically, your bill also authorizes the funds needed for 
     the full implementation of DSHEA. In the years following 
     passage of the act, chronic budget shortfalls took a toll on 
     FDA, including funding for the Office of Dietary Supplements 
     (ODS). Authorizing these funds is an important step in making 
     sure ODS has the resources it needs.
       Again, we applaud your introduction of the Dietary 
     Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010, 
     and look forward to working with you to enact this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Linda A. Suydam,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 3415. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and to amend part 
D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to negotiate covered part D drug prices on 
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing 
for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more 
affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent 
work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to 
promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized 
countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's 
bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 
drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the 
Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of 
Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug 
prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues 
over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly 
to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health 
insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription 
drugs.
  Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation 
for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that 
Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of 
prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and 
further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was 
pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law 
was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce 
prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of 
Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the 
Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses 
for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care 
dollar. These changes will

[[Page S4219]]

improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for 
individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from 
Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They 
need our help.
  One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow 
for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other 
industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and 
European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the 
same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other 
countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in 
prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times, 
and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border, 
it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the 
prescriptions they need.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing 
importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50 
billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of 
government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the 
government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19 
billion.
  We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents 
scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are 
listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want 
to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs 
they need are more affordable.
  We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for 
Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr. 
President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D 
drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide 
adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high 
prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision 
which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug 
manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done 
better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of 
that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs.
  The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the 
dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not 
speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program--
that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug 
prices for beneficiaries.
  Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr. 
President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug 
prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the 
same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on 
average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10 
prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved 
annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for 
Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion 
in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not 
aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on 
lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing 
insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for 
the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars.
  Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation 
from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare 
Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs, 
reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful 
for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing 
legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs 
in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Casey, and Mr. 
        Brown of Ohio):
  S. 3418. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
specifically include, in programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration, programs to research, prevent, and 
address the harmful consequences of pathological and other problem 
gambling, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Comprehensive 
Problem Gambling Act, a bill I introduced just moments ago with Senator 
Mike Johanns. This bill would establish and implement programs targeted 
at preventing, treating, and researching problem gambling.
  Currently, the Federal Government provides millions of dollars to 
treat alcohol and drug addiction, but does not dedicate resources to 
treat the effects of problem gambling, which can destroy a person's 
career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal 
relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity.
  Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown significantly in 
the United States. According to the National Council on Problem 
Gambling, approximately 6 to 9 million American adults are problem 
gamblers.
  The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many 
States consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state 
revenues. At the same time, the Federal Government and most states have 
devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment 
of compulsive gambling. In fact, no Federal agency is currently 
responsible for coordinating efforts for treatment and prevention. 
Prevention and treatment programs have been proven to save money by 
decreasing the severity and prevalence of problem gambling, but cash-
strapped states are struggling just to maintain funding for pre-
existing programs.
  I believe that if State governments benefit from gambling and lottery 
proceeds, then those governments have an obligation to provide 
assistance to those suffering from a gambling addiction. I am proud 
that the State of Oregon understands this concept and has one of the 
most comprehensive treatment systems in the country.
  Through Oregon's Gambling Treatment Fund, one percent of Oregon 
Lottery revenues are transferred to the Oregon Department of Human 
Services for the administration of problem gambling services. However, 
decreasing lottery revenues has resulted in reduced treatment dollars.
  I'd like to share the story of one of my constituents. For Toni, 
gambling started out as a fun trip to Reno or Las Vegas. She began 
playing video poker on occasion, and when she ran out of money, she 
would simply go home. But then the casinos brought in ATM machines, and 
she no longer had to leave the facility to access money. She could stay 
for hours, and did. Gambling quickly went from being a fun activity to 
an escape from problems and stresses in her life.
  Before long, gambling had consumed Toni's life. She gambled away her 
life savings and went through credit card after credit card, racking up 
the cash advance limits and borrowing money from family members to pay 
it off. She tried to quit numerous times, but, as she describes it, the 
urge to gamble was much stronger than she was. Eventually, she couldn't 
do it anymore. She couldn't stop thinking about how she was going to 
get her next ``fix''. She ``felt about as low as you can go.'' She knew 
she had to get help.
  Toni sought treatment in May 2009, and will soon reach the one year 
goal she set with her counselor to be gambling-free. However, she 
continues to face the long-term impacts of her gambling. Toni and her 
family live paycheck to paycheck and she worries that the debt she has 
accrued could cause her family to lose their house if the bank decides 
to raise interest on their mortgage. But Toni sees hope in her future 
because she had access to treatment and critical support services. 
While Toni has been able to start her own recovery, thousands of 
individuals across the country continue to struggle with their gambling 
addictions because there are so few prevention and treatment resources 
in place.
  Unfortunately, the lack of education and research surrounding this 
issue has made it difficult to allot the appropriate resources to 
address these problems. The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act would 
provide $14.2 million in competitive grants annually for 5 years to 
non-profits, universities, state agencies, and tribal governments

[[Page S4220]]

for prevention, research, and treatment of problem gambling.
  Recent studies show conclusively that every $1 spent on treatment 
saves more than $2 in social costs. This legislation is a minimal 
investment with life-changing returns.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Toni and the countless 
other individuals who struggle without supports by cosponsoring the 
Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2010.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3418

       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 ``Comprehensive Problem 
     Gambling Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Problem gambling is a public health disorder 
     characterized by increasing preoccupation with gambling, loss 
     of control, restlessness or irritability when attempting to 
     stop gambling, and continuation of the gambling behavior in 
     spite of mounting, serious, negative consequences.
       (2) Over 6,000,000 adults met criteria for a gambling 
     problem last year.
       (3) The estimated social cost to families and communities 
     from bankruptcy, divorce, job loss, and criminal justice 
     costs associated with problem gambling was $6,700,000,000 
     last year.
       (4) Problem gambling is associated with higher incidences 
     of bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and suicide.
       (5) People who engage in problem gambling have high rates 
     of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders.
       (6) In response to current budget shortfalls, many States 
     are considering enacting or have enacted legislation to 
     expand legal gambling activities with the intent of raising 
     State revenues.
       (7) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration is the lead Federal agency for substance abuse 
     and mental health services.
       (8) There are no agencies or individuals in the Federal 
     Government with formal responsibility for problem gambling.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS GAMBLING IN SAMHSA 
                   AUTHORITIES.

       Section 501(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     290aa(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (17);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (18) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(19) establish and implement programs for the 
     identification, prevention, and treatment of pathological and 
     other problem gambling.''.

     SEC. 4. PROGRAMS TO RESEARCH, PREVENT, AND ADDRESS PROBLEM 
                   GAMBLING.

       Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part G (42 U.S.C. 290kk et seq.), 
     relating to services provided through religious organizations 
     and added by section 144 of the Community Renewal Tax Relief 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-619), as enacted into law by 
     section 1(a)(7) of Public Law 106-554, as part J;
       (2) by redesignating sections 581 through 584 of that part 
     J as sections 596 through 596C, respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

 ``PART K--PROGRAMS TO RESEARCH, PREVENT, AND ADDRESS PROBLEM GAMBLING

     ``SEC. 597. PUBLIC AWARENESS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator, shall carry out a national campaign to 
     increase knowledge and raise awareness within the general 
     public with respect to problem gambling issues. In carrying 
     out the campaign, the Secretary shall carry out activities 
     that include augmenting and supporting existing (as of the 
     date of the support) national campaigns and producing and 
     placing public service announcements.
       ``(b) Voluntary Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Secretary may--
       ``(1) coordinate the voluntary donation of, and administer, 
     resources to assist in the implementation of new programs and 
     the augmentation and support of existing national campaigns 
     to provide national strategies for dissemination of 
     information, intended to address problem gambling, from--
       ``(A) television, radio, motion pictures, cable 
     communications, and the print media;
       ``(B) the advertising industry;
       ``(C) the business sector of the United States; and
       ``(D) professional sports organizations and associations; 
     and
       ``(2) encourage media outlets throughout the country to 
     provide information, aimed at preventing problem gambling, 
     including public service announcements, documentary films, 
     and advertisements.
       ``(c) Focus.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall target radio and television audiences of events 
     including sporting and gambling events.
       ``(d) Evaluation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall evaluate the effectiveness of activities 
     under this section. The Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the President and Congress containing the results of the 
     evaluation.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 
     2015.

     ``SEC. 597A. RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator, shall establish and implement a national 
     program of research on problem gambling.
       ``(b) National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report.--In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consider the 
     recommendations that appear in chapter 8 of the June 18, 
     1999, report of the National Gambling Impact Study 
     Commission.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 
     2015.

     ``SEC. 597B. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT.

       ``(a) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator, shall make grants to States, local and tribal 
     governments, and nonprofit agencies to provide comprehensive 
     services with respect to treatment and prevention of problem 
     gambling issues and education about problem gambling issues.
       ``(2) Application for grant.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary in such form, in such manner, 
     and containing such agreements, assurances, and information 
     as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(b) Treatment Improvement Protocol.--The Secretary shall 
     develop a treatment improvement protocol specific to problem 
     gambling.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 
     through 2015.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 3419. A bill to exclude from consumer credit reports medical debt 
that has been in collection and has been fully paid or settled, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to propose legislation to 
address the problem of medical debt and credit scores. While historic 
health reform legislation enacted this year sets us on a path towards 
ending the crushing problem of Americans who lack health insurance, the 
challenges of our health care billing system remain a work in progress. 
One of those problems arises when our system of third-party payment 
leads to errors in billing and payments that, through no fault of the 
borrower, nevertheless undermine a borrower's credit scores. The 
borrower then must pay more for a home, a car, or his or her credit 
card, and in some cases, cannot at all get the loan he or she needs and 
deserves. To address this unfair burden, I have introduced the Medical 
Debt Relief Act.
  Unlike consumer debt, Americans do not get to choose when accidents 
or medical emergencies happen. Medical debt is not the result of 
irresponsible consumer spending and is a not an indicator of poor 
credit. According to the Commonwealth Fund, accrued medical debt 
plagued nearly 72 million adults in 2007, and over 28 million American 
consumers were harassed by collection agencies for unpaid medical bills 
that same year. Research done by the Federal Reserve has found that 
medical bills make up the majority of non-credit card related accounts 
in collection and found on credit reports.
  Nor is the problem of medical debt in relation to credit scores 
simply a question of whether one has insurance or not. Rather, medical 
debt credit challenges are a direct function of the nature of our 
insurance system. Because of the third-party payment system of 
insurance, medical debt is far more likely to be in dispute, 
inconsistently reported, mired in the complex medical payment 
bureaucracy, or transferred to collections without the consumer's 
knowledge. It can often take months, if not years, to adjudicate these 
claims. Unfortunately, even one negative medical collection mark can 
damage a consumer's credit score, thereby costing the consumer higher 
interest rates on automobile loans, home loans, and credit cards. It 
can even block the consumer from making purchases entirely. Sadly, even 
after the consumer has

[[Page S4221]]

paid off or settled delinquent medical debt, the negative mark on the 
credit report continues to plague the consumer for years.
  The Medical Debt Relief Act is a straight forward solution to this 
problem. It would require the removal from a consumer's credit report 
those medical-related debts that have been fully paid. Companion 
legislation has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Mary Jo 
Kilroy and presently enjoys the support of 70 cosponsors. This 
legislation is also supported by the Consumer's Union, National 
Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.
  I am honored today to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Schumer, 
Menendez, and Harkin in this effort to fix this important problem in 
how Americans access credit. This is common sense legislation that will 
offer tangible relief to the ordinary Americans who work hard, pay 
their bills, and want to borrow money at reasonable rates to finance 
the next step in their American dream. I urge my colleagues to join us 
in the effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3419

       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 ``Medical Debt Relief Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) medical debt is unique, and Americans do not choose 
     when accidents happen or when illness strikes;
       (2) medical debt collection issues affect both insured and 
     uninsured consumers;
       (3) according to credit evaluators, medical debt 
     collections are more likely to be in dispute, inconsistently 
     reported, and of questionable value in predicting future 
     payment performance because it is atypical and nonpredictive;
       (4) nevertheless, medical debt that has been completely 
     paid off or settled can significantly damage the credit score 
     of a consumer for years;
       (5) as a result, consumers may be denied credit or pay 
     higher interest rates when buying a home or obtaining a 
     credit card;
       (6) healthcare providers are increasingly turning to 
     outside collection agencies to help secure payment from 
     patients, coming at the expense of the consumer, because 
     medical debts are not typically reported unless they become 
     assigned to collections;
       (7) in fact, medical bills account for more than half of 
     all non-credit related collection actions reported to 
     consumer credit reporting agencies;
       (8) the issue of medical debt affects millions of 
     consumers;
       (9) according to the Commonwealth Fund, medical bill 
     problems or accrued medical debt affects roughly 72,000,000 
     working-age adults in America; and
       (10) in 2007, 28,000,000 working-age American adults were 
     contacted by a collection agency for unpaid medical bills.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to exclude from 
     consumer credit reports medical debt that had been 
     characterized as debt in collection for credit reporting 
     purposes and has been fully paid or settled.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.

       (a) Medical Debt Defined.--Section 603 of the Fair Credit 
     Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(y) Medical Debt.--The term `medical debt' means a debt 
     described in section 604(g)(1)(C).''.
       (b) Exclusion for Paid or Settled Medical Debt.--Section 
     605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Any information related to a fully paid or settled 
     medical debt that had been characterized as delinquent, 
     charged off, or in collection which, from the date of payment 
     or settlement, antedates the report by more than 45 days.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 3420. A bill to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3420

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Against Indebting 
     our Descendants through Fully Offset Relief (PAID FOR) 
     Temporary Extension Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
       (2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed 
     Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 
     Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``June 2, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``june 2, 
     2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``December 7, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 11, 2011''.
       (3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
       (4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 11, 2010''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the 
     Protecting Against Indebting our Descendants through Fully 
     Offset Relief (PAID FOR) Temporary Extension Act of 2010; 
     and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   COBRA BENEFITS.

       (a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A) 
     of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     section 3(a) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section 
     3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.

       Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended 
     by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-144) and section 4 of the Continuing Extension Act of 
     2010 (Public Law 111-157), is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2010''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``June 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2010''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.

       Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 6 of 
     the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157), is 
     amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 
     2010''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as 
     amended by section 7 of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``by 
     substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end and inserting ``by substituting June 30, 2010, for the 
     date specified in each such section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28, 
     2010.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $60,000,000, for 
     an additional amount for ``Small Business Administration--
     Business Loans Program Account'', to remain available until 
     expended, for the cost of fee reductions and eliminations 
     under section 501 of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151) 
     and loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section:  Provided, 
     That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Extension of Sunset Date.--Section 502(f) of division A 
     of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``May 31, 
     2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.

[[Page S4222]]

     SEC. 8. USE OF STIMULUS FUNDS TO OFFSET SPENDING.

       The unobligated balance of each amount appropriated or made 
     available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5) (other than under title X of division 
     A of such Act) is rescinded pro rata such that the aggregate 
     amount of such rescissions equals $13,000,000,000 in order to 
     offset the net increase in spending resulting from the 
     provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 2 through 7. 
     The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     report to each congressional committee the amounts so 
     rescinded within the jurisdiction of such committee.

     SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
       (b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
     In the House of Representatives, this Act, with the exception 
     of section 4, is designated as an emergency for purposes of 
     pay-as-you-go principles. In the Senate, this Act is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       (c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act, 
     with the exception of section 4, is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 3421. A bill to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, 
and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3421

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Against Indebting 
     our Descendants through Fully Offset Relief (PAID FOR) 
     Temporary Extension Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
       (2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed 
     Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 
     Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``June 2, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``june 2, 
     2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``December 7, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 11, 2011''.
       (3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 7, 2010''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
       (4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``December 11, 2010''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the 
     Protecting Against Indebting our Descendants through Fully 
     Offset Relief (PAID FOR) Temporary Extension Act of 2010; 
     and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   COBRA BENEFITS.

       (a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A) 
     of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     section 3(a) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section 
     3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.

       Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended 
     by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-144) and section 4 of the Continuing Extension Act of 
     2010 (Public Law 111-157), is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2010''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``June 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2010''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.

       Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 6 of 
     the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157), is 
     amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 
     2010''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as 
     amended by section 7 of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``by 
     substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end and inserting ``by substituting June 30, 2010, for the 
     date specified in each such section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28, 
     2010.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $60,000,000, for 
     an additional amount for ``Small Business Administration--
     Business Loans Program Account'', to remain available until 
     expended, for the cost of fee reductions and eliminations 
     under section 501 of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151) 
     and loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section:  Provided, 
     That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Extension of Sunset Date.--Section 502(f) of division A 
     of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``May 31, 
     2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.

     SEC. 8. USE OF STIMULUS FUNDS TO OFFSET SPENDING.

       The unobligated balance of each amount appropriated or made 
     available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5) (other than under title X of division 
     A of such Act) is rescinded pro rata such that the aggregate 
     amount of such rescissions equals $13,000,000,000 in order to 
     offset the net increase in spending resulting from the 
     provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 2 through 7. 
     The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     report to each congressional committee the amounts so 
     rescinded within the jurisdiction of such committee.

     SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
       (b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
     In the House of Representatives, this Act, with the exception 
     of section 4, is designated as an emergency for purposes of 
     pay-as-you-go principles. In the Senate, this Act is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       (c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act, 
     with the exception of section 4, is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 3423. A bill to provide the President with expedited consideration 
of proposals for cancellation of certain budget items; to the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veto Wasteful 
Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 which establishes a 
constitutional line-item veto by creating an expedited rescissions 
process.
  Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled the Reduce Unnecessary 
Spending Act of 2010. This legislation is very similar to my proposal 
which I first introduced in 2006. They both provide for an expedited 
rescission process. The line-item veto is not a panacea for record 
level deficits, but it will provide the President with the necessary 
tool to reduce wasteful spending.

[[Page S4223]]

  Both bills will give the President the ability to target projects 
that have been added in spending bills that benefit special interests 
or are not necessary. I applaud President Obama for addressing this 
issue.
  I have been a long-time advocate of the line-item veto. It has been a 
successful tool at the state level and I think it can effectively 
reduce spending on the Federal level. We have made progress with 
earmark reform and I think expedited rescission would result in further 
spending reductions.
  The major difference between my legislation and the Administration's 
proposal is that the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act 
of 2010 would allow the President to suspend and propose cancellation 
for discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax 
benefits. The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 focuses on 
discretionary spending. If we really want to tackle wasteful spending, 
I think we need to look at new entitlement spending and limited tax 
benefits, not just discretionary spending.
  In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law 
the Line Item Veto Act, P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in 
Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method 
used to give the President line-item veto authority was 
unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto 
entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize presidents 
to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes.
  We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the 
Constitution. The key difference between what I am proposing and what 
the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's 
actions. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel 
provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this 
arrangement. My legislation will empower the President to suspend 
provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove the 
suspension of that provision with an up or down vote. The provisions 
are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change 
addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. My legislation also does not 
include a mechanism which allows a provision to be suspended for a 
lengthy time period.
  Under the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010, 
the President has 10 calendar days to submit to Congress a special 
message. The President may transmit two messages per bill, but a 
provision may only be proposed for suspension or cancellation one time. 
The House and Senate would consider the special message under a special 
process which does not allow for amendments or motions to strike.
  I believe that the line-item veto is a valuable tool that should be 
made available to any President regardless of political party. For this 
reason, the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 is 
permanent, rather than sunsetting after a few years.
  It is time to reinstate the line-item veto. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to return to the 
President the authority to rein in wasteful spending.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 3424. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further 
protection for puppies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3424

       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 ``Puppy Uniform Protection and 
     Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PUPPIES UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

       (a) High Volume Retail Breeder Defined.--Section 2 of the 
     Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (l), by striking ``research.'' and 
     inserting ``research;'';
       (2) in subsection (m), by striking ``members.'' and 
     inserting ``members;'';
       (3) in subsection (n), by striking ``section 13(b); and'' 
     and inserting ``section 13(b);'';
       (4) in subsection (o), by striking ``experimentation.'' and 
     inserting ``experimentation; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) High Volume Retail Breeder.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Breeding female dog.--The term `breeding female dog' 
     means an intact female dog aged 4 months or older.
       ``(B) High volume retail breeder.--The term `high volume 
     retail breeder' means a person who, in commerce, for 
     compensation or profit--
       ``(i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more 
     breeding female dogs; and
       ``(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of 
     conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), 
     more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs 
     for use as pets in any 1-year period.
       ``(2) Relationship to dealers.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this Act, a high volume 
     retail breeder shall be considered to be a dealer and subject 
     to all provisions of this Act applicable to a dealer.
       ``(B) Exception.--The retail pet store exemption in 
     subsection (f)(i) shall not apply to a high volume retail 
     breeder.''.
       (b) Licenses.--Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2133) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a) (as so designated), in the second 
     proviso of the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than a 
     high volume retail breeder)'' after ``any retail pet store or 
     other person''.; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Dealers.--A dealer (including a high volume retail 
     breeder) applying for a license under subsection (a) 
     (including annual renewals) shall include on the license 
     application the total number of dogs exempted from exercise 
     on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a 
     licensed veterinarian under section 13(j)(2).''.
       (c) Exercise Requirements.--Section 13 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively;
       (2) by redesignating the second subsection (f) (as 
     redesignated by section 1752(a)(1) of Public Law 99-198 (99 
     Stat. 1645)) as subsection (g); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Exercise Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     standards covering dealers that include requirements for the 
     exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by a dealer, 
     including exercise regulations that ensure that--
       ``(A) each dog that is at least 12 weeks old (other than a 
     female dog with unweaned puppies) has daily access to 
     exercise that--
       ``(i) allows the dog--

       ``(I) to move sufficiently to develop or maintain normal 
     muscle tone and mass as appropriate for the age, breed, sex, 
     and reproductive status of the dog; and
       ``(II) the ability to achieve a running stride; and

       ``(ii) is not a forced activity (other than a forced 
     activity used for veterinary treatment) or other physical 
     activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities, 
     solitary, and goal-oriented;
       ``(B) the provided area for exercise--
       ``(i) is separate from the primary enclosure if the primary 
     enclosure does not provide sufficient space to achieve a 
     running stride;
       ``(ii) has flooring that--

       ``(I) is sufficient to allow for the type of activity 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II)(aa) is solid flooring; or

       ``(bb) is nonsolid, nonwire flooring, if the nonsolid, 
     nonwire flooring--
       ``(AA) is safe for the breed, size, and age of the dog;
       ``(BB) is free from protruding sharp edges; and
       ``(CC) is designed so that the paw of the dog is unable to 
     extend through or become caught in the flooring;
       ``(iii) is cleaned at least once each day;
       ``(iv) is free of infestation by pests or vermin; and
       ``(v) is designed in a manner to prevent escape of the 
     dogs.
       ``(2) Exemption.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a licensed veterinarian determines 
     that a dog should not exercise because of the health, 
     condition, or well-being of the dog, this subsection shall 
     not apply to that dog.
       ``(B) Documentation.--A determination described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be--
       ``(i) documented by the veterinarian;
       ``(ii) subject to review and approval by the Secretary; and
       ``(iii) unless the basis for the determination is a 
     permanent condition, reviewed and updated at least once every 
     30 days by the veterinarian.
       ``(C) Reports.--A determination described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be maintained by the dealer.''.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate any 
     regulations that the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 4. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     preempt any law (including a regulation) of a State, or a 
     political subdivision of a State, containing requirements 
     that provide equivalent or greater protection for animals 
     than the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by 
     this Act.

[[Page S4224]]



                          ____________________