[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]]



                          ____________________