[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 113 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6521-S6528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3665. A bill to promote the strengthening of the private sector in
Pakistan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will
lead to the establishment of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund on
behalf of myself and Senator Kerry. The Pakistan-American Enterprise
Fund bill authorizes the Administration to allocate, from existing
funds granted under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009,
such sums as required to create the Fund. The mission of the Fund will
be to help empower Pakistan's private sector to create jobs, which will
contribute towards achieving long-term social stability and economic
growth.
The failed attack that occurred on May 1, 2010 in Times Square
reinforces the need for our governments to work together to neutralize
the imminent threats posed by terrorist waiting to strike, while
simultaneously preventing the cancer of extremism from spreading and
corrupting local communities in both our countries.
It was to help undergird such cooperation that President Obama last
year signed the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan
Act authorizing $7.5 billion over 5 years. This non-military aid
package is intended to help reverse Pakistan's converging crises of a
growing al-Qaeda sanctuary, an expanding Taliban insurgency, a failing
economy and deteriorating human development indicators. These
conditions were intensifying turmoil and violence in the country,
helping to incubate extremism and putting in question the security of
Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal, as well as our own domestic
security.
In order to directly address Pakistan's troubling economic
trajectory, the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund will work with the
private sector to catalyze indigenous job creation, which will empower
the people of Pakistan to help themselves. Entrepreneurial innovation
is the engine that fuels sustainable economic growth and development.
Pakistan currently enjoys a vibrant private sector, especially among
small and medium size enterprises, but more must be done to encourage
business formation and expansion.
According to the World Bank, small and medium size enterprises, SMEs,
in
[[Page S6522]]
Pakistan account for nearly 90 percent of all businesses, 80 percent of
all non-agricultural employees, and 40 percent of annual GDP. If the
country is to emerge as a commercial partner and regional leader, SMEs
must receive a strong transfusion of investment capital so that gainful
employment exists as an alternative to the financial incentives offered
by radical groups in Pakistan.
In addition to providing much needed capital to aspiring and
established Pakistani entrepreneurs, the Fund will provide a vehicle
through which we might also export the entrepreneurial instincts and
experience that are widely dispersed, but largely untapped, among US
financial experts. Sustainable entrepreneurial activity requires a
combination of financial and intellectual capital. Delivering both of
these ingredients effectively is essential.
USAID has demonstrated a limited capacity to deliver this type of
relevant, usable assistance when needed. Currently under-resourced for
and over-stretched by the task of rebuilding the infrastructures and
economies of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Haiti--while simultaneously
rebuilding the agency itself--USAID's efforts would be enhanced by the
expertise the Fund could bring to bear.
The creation of a Fund for Pakistan, like many of its predecessors,
could couple financial and intellectual capital in a framework that is
uniquely suited to addressing the financial and technical assistance
needs in distressed economies like Pakistan. Appointed by the
president, the Board of Directors, comprised of 4 private citizens of
the United States and 3 private citizens of Pakistan who serve without
compensation, will leverage their experience and expertise operating in
international and emerging markets to oversee the Fund, which will be
based in Pakistan. In turn, the Board would hire and direct a group of
American and Pakistani bankers, who would be dispatched, using existing
funds granted under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009,
to provide technical assistance and traditional financial products,
like working capital loans and 3 to 5 year cash flow term loans for
expansion capital, to the private sector.
While the enterprise fund model is not perfect, it is a tested
mechanism for promoting economic growth and reinvigorating fledgling
economies. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Congress, through
enactment of the Support for East European Development Act, SEED, and
the Freedom Support Act, FSA, authorized nearly $1.2 billion for USAID
to establish ten new investment funds, collectively known as the
``Enterprise Funds'', throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the
Former Soviet Union. These funds channeled funding into over 500
enterprises in 19 countries, leveraged an additional $5 billion in
private investment capital from outside the U.S. Government, provided
substantial development capital where supply was limited, created or
sustained over 260,000 jobs through investment and development
activities, funded $74 million in technical assistance to strengthen
the private sector and is expected to recoup 137 percent of the
original USAID funding.
Pakistan's economy has shown resilience in the face of many
challenges since the 1960s. However, today the country stands at a
crossroads. If Pakistan is to repress extremist voices and emerge as a
more reliable partner in the 21st century, we must empower the private
sector to create jobs and contribute towards a sustainable future. The
creation of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund would help to achieve
this positive outcome. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3666. A bill to authorize certain Department of State personnel,
who are responsible for examining and processing United States passport
applications, to be able to access certain Federal, State, and other
databases, for the purpose of verifying the identity of a passport
applicant, to reduce the incidence of fraud, to require the
authentication of identification documents submitted by passport
applicants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I
chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance
Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of
that hearing. During the hearing last year, we learned about a
Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that
had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the
effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine
whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other
criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S.
passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals
could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting
skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a
genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first
time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified.
In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.
Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious
because the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A
U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it
gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an
important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including
terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security
of the passport issuance process is extremely important because it can
have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.
A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with
Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, has revealed that while
some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport
issuance process is still susceptible to fraud.
As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein
and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation
is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the
legal authorities that it needs to access information contained in
Federal, State, and other databases that can be used to verify the
identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud,
without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve
passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to
promulgate regulations, procedures, and policies to limit access to
this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport
issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes.
These are very important privacy and security protections in this
legislation.
The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a
formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can
be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport
applicant and to detect passport fraud.
I understand that the American people can become concerned when their
travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their
ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. But we have got to
get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques,
and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are
responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned
about national security as well as customer service, and we need to
make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the
technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and
to detect passport fraud.
We simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of
fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the
technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport
Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State
Department's ability to detect passport fraud.
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. 3666
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 ``Passport Identity
Verification Act''.
[[Page S6523]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A United States passport is an official government
document issued by the Department of State, which can be
obtained by United States nationals.
(2) A valid United States passport has many uses,
including--
(A) certifying an individual's identity and verifying that
a person is a United States national;
(B) allowing the passport holder to travel to foreign
countries with an internationally recognized travel document;
(C) facilitating international travel;
(D) obtaining further identification documents; and
(E) setting up bank accounts.
(3) A United States national may obtain a United States
passport for the first time by applying in person to a
passport acceptance facility with 2 passport photographs,
proof of United States nationality, and a valid form of photo
identification, such as a driver's license. Passport
acceptance facilities are located throughout the United
States.
(4) Because United States passports issued under a false
identity enable individuals to conceal their movements and
activities, passport fraud could facilitate--
(A) acts of terrorism;
(B) espionage; and
(C) other crimes, such as illegal immigration, money
laundering, drug trafficking, tax evasion, and alien
smuggling.
(5) Since malicious individuals may seek to exploit
potential vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process,
it is important that personnel who are involved in the
granting, refusal, revocation, or adjudication of United
States passport applications have access to certain
information contained in Federal, State, and other databases
for the purpose of--
(A) verifying the identity of a passport applicant; or
(B) detecting passport fraud.
(6) In its final report, the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as
the ``9/11 Commission'') concluded that funding and
completing a ``biometric entry-exit screening system'' for
travelers to and from the United States is essential to our
national security.
(7) The use of biometrics and technology for foreign
nationals who are visiting the country helps to make travel
simple, easy, and convenient for legitimate visitors and
dramatically improves the ability to detect the activities of
those who wish to do harm or violate United States laws.
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND OTHER DATABASES.
(a) Powers and Duties of the Secretary of State.--Section
104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Law Enforcement Activities.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the powers, duties, and functions
conferred upon Department of State personnel relating to the
granting, refusal, revocation, or adjudication of passports
shall be considered law enforcement activities that involve
the administration of criminal justice (as defined in section
20.3 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations) when such
personnel seek to--
``(1) verify the identity of a passport applicant; or
``(2) detect passport fraud.''.
(b) Data Exchange.--Section 105 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1105)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) The Attorney General and the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, after consultation with the
Secretary of State, shall promptly implement a system,
consistent with applicable security and training protocols
and requirements, that will enable Department of State
personnel designated by the Secretary of State, or by the
designee of the Secretary, who are responsible for the
granting, refusal, revocation, or adjudication of United
States passports, to have real-time access to the criminal
history information contained in the National Crime
Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-
III), including the corresponding automated criminal history
records, Wanted Person Files, and other files maintained by
the National Crime Information Center, for the purpose of
verifying the identity of the United States passport
applicant, or detecting passport fraud.
``(6) The Secretary of State, or the designee of the
Secretary, shall designate Department of State personnel who,
in accordance with this Act shall be authorized to have real-
time access to the information contained in the files
described in paragraph (5), without any fee or charge, to
enable named-based and other searches to be conducted for the
purpose of verifying the identity of a passport applicant or
detecting passport fraud.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Data Sharing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the powers, duties, and functions conferred upon
Department of State personnel relating to the granting,
refusal, revocation, or adjudication of passports shall be
considered law enforcement activities that involve the
administration of criminal justice (as defined in section
20.3 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations) when such
personnel seek to verify the identity of a passport
applicant, or seek to detect passport fraud by accessing or
using information contained in databases maintained by any
Federal, State, tribal, territory, or local government
department or agency, or private entity or organization, that
contains--
``(1) criminal history information or records;
``(2) driver's license information or records;
``(3) marriage, birth, or death information or records;
``(4) naturalization and immigration records; or
``(5) other information or records that can verify the
identity of the passport applicant or can detect passport
fraud.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Data Sharing Regulations, Procedures, and Policies.--
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary of State shall promulgate
final regulations, procedures, and policies to govern the
access by Department of State personnel to the information
contained in databases described in subsection (c). Such
regulations, procedures, and policies shall--
``(1) specify which Department of State personnel have a
need to know and will be given access to the databases or the
information contained in the databases described in
subsection (c);
``(2) require Department of State personnel who will be
given access to the databases or the information contained in
the databases described in subsection (c) to successfully
complete all ongoing training and certification requirements
for such access;
``(3) require Department of State personnel to access such
databases or the information contained in such databases--
``(A) to verify the identity of each passport applicant;
and
``(B) to detect whether the applicant has committed or is
committing passport fraud;
``(4) ensure that such databases, or the information
contained in such databases, are only accessed for the
purpose of verifying the identity of each passport applicant
or detecting passport fraud, and prohibit access for any
other purpose;
``(5) ensure that the Department of State personnel
accessing such databases or the information contained in such
databases--
``(A) do not violate the security, confidentiality, and
privacy of such databases or the information contained in
such databases; and
``(B) successfully complete all ongoing training and
certification requirements for such access;
``(6) establish audit procedures and policies to verify
that such databases or the information contained in such
databases are only being accessed for the purposes set forth
in the Passport Identity Verification Act;
``(7) require prompt reporting to appropriate Department of
State officials after each instance of--
``(A) unauthorized access to such databases or the
information contained in such databases; or
``(B) access to such databases or the information contained
in such databases for unauthorized purposes; and
``(8) require the appropriate Department of State personnel
to conduct a regular review of--
``(A) the audit and reporting procedures and policies to
determine whether such procedures and policies are working
properly; and
``(B) the ongoing training and certification requirements
to determine whether there has been compliance with such
requirements.''.
SEC. 4. CONSULTATION AND REPORT.
(a) Consultation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney
General, and the United States Postmaster General, shall
conduct an analysis to determine--
(A) if persons applying for or renewing a United States
passport should provide biometric information, including
photographs that meet standards that enhance the ability of
facial recognition technology to verify the identity of the
passport applicant and user, and to detect passport fraud;
and
(B) if technology should be employed to verify the
authenticity of drivers' license and other identity documents
that are presented to passport acceptance facilities.
(2) Factors.--In conducting the analysis under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consider all relevant factors,
including--
(A) how the biometric information and technology would be
used and stored;
(B) the costs and benefits to be gained; and
(C) the effect on the individual's privacy and the economy.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit a report to the congressional committees set forth in
paragraph (2) that contains the results of the analysis
carried out under subsection (a), including a recommendation
with respect to the use of biometric information and
technology to verify the identity of a passport applicant and
user, and to detect passport fraud.
(2) Congressional committees.--The congressional committees
set forth in this paragraph are--
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
[[Page S6524]]
(D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives;
(E) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives;
(F) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives; and
(G) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Franken):
S. 3667. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to exclude child care from the determination of the 5-year limit on
assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation has suffered through the worst
recession since the 1930s. As the economy begins to recover, the
availability of affordable and safe child care is a necessary component
of enabling parents to find and maintain employment to support their
family.
The recession has caused States across the country to scale back
funding for child care. The waiting lists for subsidized child care in
some States are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or are
planning to stop providing child care assistance to families who are
not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, altogether.
Restrictions of the availability of child care assistance make it
harder for parents to afford child care and force some parents to leave
their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. That is wrong and
we can do better.
Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can range
from $4,560 to $15,895 annually for full-time care depending on where
the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child
care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically
exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the
District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an
infant in a child care center was higher than a year's tuition at many
4-year public colleges.
Without assistance, low-income families can find it impossible to
secure child care. For example, in 2005, the median monthly income of
families receiving child care assistance was just $15,396 a year.
Nearly half of, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance
live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were
single parent households.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increased mandatory child care
funding by $1 billion over 5 years, fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Without
legislative action this funding will expire on September 30, 2010.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget calls for mandatory child
care to be reauthorized and provided an $800 million increase above the
past 5 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six
children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help.
Today I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing
unmet need for affordable and safe child care. I am pleased Senator
Lincoln is an original cosponsors of this important legislation.
The Children First Act would help states meet the significant demand
for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child
care by $800 million annually for fiscal year 2011 through 2015. This
legislation would also annually index mandatory child care funding to
inflation beginning in fiscal year 2012. This increased funding would
allow approximately 117,500 more children to have access to safe and
affordable child care.
The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition
of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care
assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for
Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the
minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers
receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply
to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all
licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards
regardless of subsidy type received.
This legislation would increase the availability of child care for
parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from
withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children
under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the
unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care
arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from
withholding to reducing child care assistance to parents of a child
with children under age 13.
Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home
State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 18,000
children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. Approximately half of
the parents with at least one preschool age child in the household have
been on the waitlist for 13 months or more.
The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing
families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts
families pay more on average than families in any other state for most
types of child care; the average price of full time care in center
based settings is: $15,895 for an infant and $11,678 for a preschooler.
This means a single parent at the State median income in Massachusetts,
$26,680, would have to spend nearly 44 percent of their income to pay
for the average full day pre-kindergarten program.
I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been
integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have
endorsed it today, including the American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP,
the First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Women's Law Center,
the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the YMCA of the
USA.
These reforms would significantly increase access to stable and
affordable child care to low-income families and would make our
nation's children more prepared for school and success later in life. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this
legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Bond):
S. 3668. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to establish a demonstration program to award grants to, and enter into
contracts with, medical-legal partnerships to assist patients and their
families to navigate health-related programs and activities; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Bayh and Senator Bond
to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This
legislation builds upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships
are doing every day, all across the United States.
Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical
settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to provide
patients with legal help to address conditions that lead to poor
health, lengthy hospital stays, and repeated emergency room visits.
Imagine, for example, that your child develops chronic ear infections.
You repeatedly bring your sick child to the local emergency room,
struggling each time to pay the high costs of medical care and
prescription antibiotics. Imagine further that you are the head of a
low-income family, you don't have health insurance or the money to pay
for the ER visits, and the hospital or community bears the brunt of the
costs.
Medical-legal partnerships can help break this expensive and
avoidable cycle. If the emergency room doctor is trained in screening
for families who could benefit from legal intervention, the doctor may
learn, for example, that the family's landlord refuses to turn on the
heat in their apartment building. The frigid temperatures in their home
have made their child more susceptible to illness, which explains the
chronic ear infections. By referring the patient to the hospital's
medical-legal partnership program, the family receives legal aid to go
after the slumlord and require the heat to be turned on, and the
children's ear infections stop. As a consequence, the family is
healthier, their home is warm, and both they and the hospital save on
health costs. All of this is possible because of a low-cost, common-
sense intervention.
The first medical-legal partnership was started in Boston in 1993,
and since
[[Page S6525]]
then, 85 more have sprung up in 38 States. These centers can serve
multiple hospitals and clinics within a community. Currently, medical-
legal partnerships support more than 200 hospitals, clinics, and health
centers. They help vulnerable patients resolve social conditions that
lead to poor health outcomes, such as getting a landlord to change air
filters to help minimize asthma and allergies, assisting victims of
domestic violence with preventing future abuse, and helping terminally
ill patients make custodial arrangements for their dependent children.
In many cases, patients aren't even aware that their health
challenges are caused by their living environment, or that their
problem can be addressed through the legal system.
After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services
attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is
to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn
when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal
help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships
while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know
that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless
against the injustices they suffer.
I am very proud to say that my home State of Iowa has a particularly
successful partnership. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project
harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the
lives of vulnerable Iowans. Many times these situations involve
substandard housing, discrimination, elder abuse, or problems accessing
disability, Social Security, health, or veteran's benefits. By
partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my State, the
Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from
Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. Last
year, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had
a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a
remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on
across the country.
You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal
partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was
started with a Federal investment of less than $300,000. The program
prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost
hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs
and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs
can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future
hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense
to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal
Partnership for Health Act along with Senators Bayh and Bond: to give
health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to
start such programs.
The Act creates a Federal demonstration program to help create,
strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this
legislation will support 60 MLP sites in community health centers, the
Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings.
In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, we have taken
contentious issues off the table. For example, the bill excludes
Federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical
malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and
abortion or abortion-counseling services.
In addition to having bipartisan support, medical-legal partnerships
have been praised by prominent organizations representing physicians
and attorneys. They have received endorsement from the American Medical
Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation
Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few.
Through this community-based, common-sense investment in addressing
the social effects of poverty, we will be able to help so many of our
most at-risk citizens to avoid illness and hospitalization.
I extend my sincere thanks to Senator Bayh and Senator Bond for their
hard work and commitment to this bill. And I urge our colleagues to
join us in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships.
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. 3668
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-Legal Partnership
for Health Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Numerous studies and reports, including the annual
National Healthcare Disparities Report and Unequal Treatment,
the 2002 Institute of Medicine Report, document the
extensiveness to which vulnerable populations suffer from
health disparities across the country.
(2) These studies have found that, on average, racial and
ethnic minorities and low-income populations are
disproportionately afflicted with chronic and acute
conditions such as asthma, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension
and suffer worse health outcomes, worse health status, and
higher mortality rates.
(3) Several recent studies also show that health and
healthcare quality are a function of not only access to
healthcare, but also the social determinants of health,
including the environment, the physical structure of
communities, socio-economic status, nutrition, educational
attainment, employment, race, ethnicity, geography, and
language preference, that directly and indirectly affect the
health, healthcare, and wellness of individuals and
communities.
(4) Formally integrating medical and legal professionals in
the health setting can more effectively address the health
needs of vulnerable populations and ultimately reduce health
disparities.
(5) All over the United States, healthcare providers who
take care of low-income individuals and families are
partnering with legal professionals to assist them in
providing better quality of healthcare.
(6) Medical-legal partnerships integrate lawyers in a
health setting to help patients navigate the complex
government, legal, and service systems in addressing social
determinants of health, such as income supports for food
insecure families and mold removal from the home of
asthmatics.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) support and advance opportunity for medical-legal
partnerships to be more fully integrated in healthcare
settings nationwide;
(2) to improve the quality of care for vulnerable
populations by reducing health disparities among health
disparities populations and addressing the social
determinants of health; and
(3) identify and develop cost-effective strategies that
will improve patient outcomes and realize savings for
healthcare systems.
SEC. 3. MEDICAL-LEGAL PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a nationwide demonstration project consisting
of--
(1) awarding grants to, and entering into contracts with,
medical-legal partnerships to assist patients and their
families to navigate programs and activities; and
(2) evaluating the effectiveness of such partnerships.
(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may, directly or
through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to
grantees under subsection (a)(1) to support the establishment
and sustainability of medical-legal partnerships. Not to
exceed 5 percent of the amount appropriated to carry out this
section in a fiscal year may be used for purposes of this
subsection.
(c) Funding.--
(1) Use of funds.--Amounts received as a grant or pursuant
to a contract under this section shall be used to assist
patients and their families to navigate health-related
programs and activities for purposes of achieving one or more
of the following goals:
(A) Enhancing access to healthcare services.
(B) Improving health outcomes for low-income individuals,
as defined in subsection (g).
(C) Reducing health disparities among health disparities
populations.
(D) Enhancing wellness and prevention of chronic conditions
and other health problems.
(E) Reducing cost of care to the healthcare system.
(F) Addressing the social determinants of health.
(G) Addressing situational contributing factors.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary, but not to exceed $10,000,000, for each of the
fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(3) Matching requirement.--For each fiscal year, the
Secretary may not award a grant or contract under this
section to a entity unless the entity agrees to make
available non-Federal contributions (which may
[[Page S6526]]
include in-kind contributions) toward the costs of a grant or
contract awarded under this section in an amount that is not
less than $1 for each $10 of Federal funds provided under the
grant or contract.
(4) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to
paragraph (2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary may obligate
not more than 5 percent for the administrative expenses of
the Secretary in carrying out this section.
(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
or contract under this section, an entity shall--
(1) be an organization experienced in bridging the medical
and legal professions on behalf of vulnerable populations
nationally; and
(2) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
may require, including information demonstrating that the
applicant has experience in bridging the medical and legal
professions or a strategy or plan for cultivating and
building medical-legal partnerships.
(e) Prohibitions.--No funds under this section may be
used--
(1) for any medical malpractice action or proceeding;
(2) to provide any support to an alien who is not--
(A) a qualified alien (as defined in section 431 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act);
(B) a nonimmigrant under the Immigration and Nationality
Act; or
(C) an alien who is paroled into the United States under
section 212(d)(5) of such Act for less than one year;
(3) to provide legal assistance with respect to any
proceeding or litigation which seeks to procure an abortion
or to compel any individual or institution to perform an
abortion, or assist in the performance of an abortion; or
(4) to initiate or participate in a class action lawsuit.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Final report by secretary.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of the completion of the demonstration program
under this section, the Secretary shall conduct a study of
the results of the program and submit to the Congress a
report on such results that includes the following:
(A) An evaluation of the program outcomes, including--
(i) a description of the extent to which medical-legal
partnerships funded through this section achieved the goals
described in subsection (b);
(ii) quantitative and qualitative analysis of baseline and
benchmark measures; and
(iii) aggregate information about the individuals served
and program activities.
(B) Recommendations on whether the programs funded under
this section could be used to improve patient outcomes in
other public health areas.
(2) Interim reports by secretary.--The Secretary may
provide interim reports to the Congress on the demonstration
program under this section at such intervals as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(3) Reports by grantees.--The Secretary may require each
recipient of a grant under this section to submit interim and
final reports on the programs carried out by such recipient
with such grant.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``health disparities populations'' has the
meaning given such term in section 485E(d) of the Public
Health Service Act.
(2) The term ``low-income individuals'' refers to the
population of individuals and families who earn up to 200
percent of the Federal poverty level.
(3) The term ``medical-legal partnership'' means an
entity--
(A) that is a partnership between--
(i) a community health center, public hospital, children's
hospital, or other provider of health care services to a
significant number of low-income beneficiaries; and
(ii) one or more legal professionals; and
(B) whose primary mission is to assist patients and their
families navigate health-related programs, activities, and
services through the provision of relevant civil legal
assistance on-site in the healthcare setting involved, in
conjunction with regular training for healthcare staff and
providers regarding the connections between legal
interventions, social determinants, and health of low-income
individuals.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Franken):
S. 3669. A bill to increase criminal penalties for certain knowing
violations relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food
Safety Enforcement Act, legislation that will hold criminals who poison
our food supply accountable for their crimes. This common sense bill
increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who
knowingly violate our food safety laws. If it is passed, those who
knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could
receive up to 10 years in jail.
Last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before
the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher,
who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he
developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully,
Christopher recovered, and Mrs. Meunier was able to share her story,
which highlighted for the Committee and for the Senate improvements
that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go
through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be
confident that the food they buy for their families is safe.
Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for
those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. The fines and recalls
that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall
short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those
who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view
such fines or recalls as just the cost of doing business. In order to
protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct, we
need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will
go to jail.
After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of
Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of
salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. The outbreak
was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that
company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right
against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role
in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products have been
linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600
others. It appears that Parnell knew that peanut products from his
company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than
immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them
anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the
public's safety.
The bill I introduce today would increase sentences for people who
put profits above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply. It
makes such offenses felony violations and significantly increases the
chances that those who commit them will face jail time, rather than a
slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct.
I hope Senators of both parties will act quickly to pass this bill.
On behalf of Mrs. Meunier and her son, Christopher, as well as many
like them across the country, we must repair our broken food safety
system. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to
investigate, prosecute, and truly deter crime involving food safety.
This bill will be an important step toward making our food supply
safer.
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. 3669
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 ``Food Safety Enforcement Act
of 2010''.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
Section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 333(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Any'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), any'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (1) of this section, if'' and
inserting ``If''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (a),
(b), (c), (k), or (v) of section 301 with respect to any food
that is misbranded or adulterated shall be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10
years, or both.''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 3670. A bill to establish standards limiting the amounts of
arsenic and lead contained in glass beads used in pavement markings; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Safe
Highway Markings Act of 2010, a bill that would establish minimum
standards limiting the amounts of arsenic and
[[Page S6527]]
lead contained in glass beads for reflective pavement markings. This
bill will help protect surface and ground water from contamination and
protect the health and safety of highway workers.
Each year, approximately 500 million pounds of glass beads are
applied to create reflective markings on roads in the United States.
The source materials for the manufacturing of these glass beads can
vary widely. While most engineered glass beads use environmentally-
friendly materials such as recycled flat glass, some of the glass beads
contain arsenic, lead and other heavy metals. As the glass degrades
from the pounding of traffic, snow plows, trucks and weather, toxic
materials can leach out of the glass and mix into the ground and
surface water. In addition, workers who apply the glass beads with high
concentrations of heavy metals are at risk for exposure.
In response to environmental and health issues, several states have
adopted regulations that require the use of environmentally-friendly,
non-toxic glass materials. In particular, California, Iowa, Maine, New
Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming have established procurement
standards for the quality of glass beads used in highways markings in
their States. Several other States are currently reviewing proposals.
Additionally, the European Union, China, Australia, and several
Canadian provinces have also set standards limiting heavy metal
concentration.
It makes no sense to continue this piecemeal approach; it is time for
a national standard. This legislation establishes a minimum standard
for engineered glass beads used in reflective markings. The legislation
ensures that States receiving Federal funds adhere to the Environmental
Protection Agency's methods and standards for engineered glass beads,
specifically that the beads may contain no more than 200 parts per
million of arsenic.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the House and I look
forward to advancing this important legislation in the Senate. As such,
I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will help safeguard the
lives of highway workers and help keep public roads free of high levels
of arsenic and lead.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Goodwin):
S. 3671. A bill to improve compliance with mine and occupational
safety and health law, empower workers to raise safety concerns,
prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of
families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ROCKEFELER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce with my
colleague Senator Goodwin the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety
and Health Act of 2010. This legislation is a first step to making sure
that every miner in West Virginia can go to work each and every day
without fearing for their safety. It also serves as a tribute to all
miners who have lost their lives, and also to my dear friend and
colleague, the late Senator Byrd, who devoted his career to improving
the working condition of West Virginia's miners and worked diligently
with me to develop this bill.
It has been several months since the Upper Big Branch mine disaster,
but for many of us, it feels like only yesterday that we were anxiously
waiting to hear news about the missing miners. Shortly after that
horrible accident I came to this floor and said that ``No words are
adequate to describe the grief.'' I know that for the families of those
29 miners that remains the case.
Even as the investigation into the Upper Big Branch mine continues to
move forward, we owe it to the victims' families and to the miners that
still get up and go to work every day, to find real solutions to keep
our miners safe.
The legislation Senator Goodwin and I are introducing today has been
a team effort--particularly with my colleague and friend Congressman
Nick Rahall, who has introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House
of Representatives. I would like to acknowledge Senators Harkin and
Murray for their effort and their commitment to addressing mine and
workplace safety.
It gives teeth to existing whistleblower protections so that miners
can come forward to report safety concerns. Miners should not fear for
their jobs--their livelihoods--simply because they are trying to keep
themselves and their coworkers safe. We have a responsibility to give
them every protection necessary. Our bill gives miners up to 180 days
to file a whistleblower retaliation complaint, it allows punitive
damages and criminal penalties for retaliating against a whistleblower,
and it makes sure that miners do not lose pay if their mines are shut
down for safety reasons. It also allows miners to give private
interviews with MSHA and exclude the operator or union representative
from the room. I know that the industry and unions do not like this,
but it is important for miners to be allowed to speak freely without
intimidation or influence from anyone.
Our legislation also gives MSHA additional tools to keep miners safe,
including the ability to order additional safety training at mines
where it is needed, expanded authority to seek injunctions to stop
dangerous practices, and the ability to subpoena documents and
testimony outside of the public hearing context. But this bill also
takes a hard look at MSHA to make sure they are doing their job by
creating an independent panel to investigate MSHA's role in serious
accidents and it requires MSHA to conduct inspections during all hours
and shifts so that every miner has the same level of protection.
Importantly, this bill also fixes the broken ``pattern of
violations'' process--which was meant to give MSHA authority to crack
down on mines that repeatedly violate our laws, but has never been
effectively implemented. Rather than the punitive process that exists
under current law, our legislation focuses on rehabilitating unsafe
mines so that miners can go to work confident that they will safely
return home to their families at the end of the shift. Mines will have
to implement safety plans, will be subject to additional inspections,
and will be required to show substantial improvement in their safety
records before being removed from pattern status.
Our bill contains additional protections that will apply to workers
across all industries under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. These include expanded whistleblower
protections for employees, the explicit right to refuse to perform
unsafe work, greater rights for victims and their families to
participate in the investigation process, updated civil and criminal
penalties, and the requirement that hazardous conditions be abated
immediately so that litigation does not delay safety. Deadly accidents
occur in mines and throughout every industry. Everyone deserves to be
safe on the job, and these provisions will go a long way toward
achieving that goal.
But our bill also has additional provisions that are not included in
the House version. It requires an evaluation of whether MSHA has the
experts it needs to effectively enforce our laws. It requires the
Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent evaluation
of MSHA's new ``pattern of violations'' criteria to make sure it is
effective in preventing repeated violations at our most unsafe mines.
It promotes greater coordination between the Department of Justice and
Department of Labor in investigating criminal violations of our mine
safety laws. It requires MSHA to improve its online database so that
the public can more easily find out the full safety records of
operators not just individual mines, and compare the safety records of
various mines and operators. It requires MSHA to routinely develop
long-term safety goals and strategic plans to meet those goals. These
provisions will improve transparency, increase accountability, and set
us on a path toward safety.
We can never change what happened at the Upper Big Branch mine, but
we can change the way we do business going forward. Americans deserve
the peace of mind that comes from safe working conditions. Following
the Upper Big Branch tragedy, this Senate chose to honor the fallen
miners with a resolution--a gesture that Senator Byrd and I very much
appreciated. I hope that my colleagues will work with Senator Goodwin
and I to pass meaningful mine safety legislation in their honor as
well.
[[Page S6528]]
____________________