Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 122 (Monday, September 13, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 122 (Monday, September 13, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7036-S7044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3766. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research,
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010 on behalf of Senator
Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and myself.
Some 21 days ago, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth, the
expenditures made by the National Institutes of Health for embryonic
stem cell research under an Executive order issued by President Obama
on March 9, 2009, was overturned under a declaration that the Executive
order violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment enacted by Congress.
Even though on its face it is pretty clear-cut that the embryonic
stem cell research was not precluded by that amendment, that has had
the effect of tying up very important ongoing research. For example,
some $546 million has already been spent on human embryonic stem cell
research and some very noteworthy progress has been made. For example,
the Food and Drug Administration has approved a clinical trial for
patients with spinal cord injury, and human embryonic stem cell
research has been successfully used to develop new therapeutic drugs
for a number of diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and
muscular dystrophy, and those are just a couple of the illustrations.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed the
lower court's order until September 20, but there is very substantial
doubt as what the future will be. Meanwhile, although the district
court order has been stayed, there is great uncertainty in the research
community as to what will happen. This research is vital for moving
against the maladies of our society.
The background on this issue is that in November of 1998, the
disclosure was made about the potential for embryonic stem cell
research. At the time I chaired the appropriations subcommittee which
funded Health and Human Services. It seemed to me that was a tremendous
opportunity and I scheduled a hearing within a few days, held on
December 2 of 1998. Since that time, there have been some 20 hearings.
As we all know, the funding for the National Institutes of Health has
had a tremendous increase. When I joined the committee after my
election in 1980, the funding was $3.6 billion. When I became chairman
of the committee in the mid-1990s, the funding was $12 billion. With
the concurrence of the then-ranking member, Senator Harkin, we took the
lead in increasing funding from some $12 billion to $30 billion.
Regrettably, with budget constraints, the funding did not keep pace,
starting in the year 2003. But in the stimulus package there was an
additional $10 billion added which has reawakened a whole generation of
research scientists, with that $10 billion providing funding for some
15,000 grants.
The results for health have been really overwhelming. Here are a few
illustrations. In the 1950s, cardiovascular disease caused half of the
United States deaths. Today, the rate for coronary heart disease is
more than 60 percent lower. Over the past 25 years, the 5-year survival
rate for prostate cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99
percent for diagnosed patients. For childhood cancers, the 5-year
survival rate has improved markedly over the past 3 decades, from less
than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80 percent today. Those are only
illustrative statistics. The opportunities for embryonic stem cell
research are overwhelming.
The Specter-Harkin bill was passed by the Senate in 2006 by a vote of
63 to 37, a very healthy margin for an issue which has raised some
controversy. The House of Representatives passed the legislation but
regrettably President Bush vetoed it in 2006, and the effort to
override the veto in the House failed. There was a vote of 235 to 193,
short of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. But that shows
enormous Congressional support.
Then President Obama issued the Executive order that Federal funds
could be used on embryonic stem cell research on lines where the embryo
had been donated. This is in line with the policy adopted by President
Bush in August of 2001, when he allowed the use of quite a number of
stem cell lines where the embryos had been donated. Later it was found
there were only 21 lines, and those were insufficient, which has led to
the effort for legislation and then led to President Obama's Executive
order. The fact is, there are some 400,000 of these embryos which are
frozen and which will ultimately be discarded. So it is use them for
medical research to save lives or throw them away. Some have contended
that we are destroying lives but the reality is they will not be
utilized.
In response to the issue as to whether there might be adoption of
these embryos, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating
substantial funds, which is more than $4 million a year, actually $4.2
million, but relatively few people have come forward for its use on
adopting the embryos to turn them into life. If these embryos could be
turned into human life I would not under any circumstance advocate
scientific research on these embryos--if they could produce life. But
they cannot. The facts are plain. The adoption line has been in effect
now since 2002. Only a few hundred have been adopted. President Bush
invited the ``snowflake'' children to the White House during his
tenure, about 150 of them.
Now we have a situation where the court has intervened, even though
more than a year and a half had elapsed since President Obama issued
the Executive order, a clear indication of congressional intent not to
deal with it or not to overturn it. I think it is a fair legal analysis
that the order issued by the district court is not a sound order. Some
indication of that is found in the fact that the circuit court stayed
the order--not conclusive, but when they stay an order it looks as
though they are not favorably inclined toward it. But who knows what
the circuit court will do? Who knows what the Supreme Court of the
United States, with their ideological bent, would do? This has become a
theological issue in part, very emotional, with people arguing that it
is akin to abortion. Of course it is nowhere near that kind.
It seems to me Congress ought to act. That is why on the first order
of business after we convened here this afternoon, our first day back
and our first hour in the Senate session, I am introducing this
legislation. I have discussed it with sponsors on the House side and I
think we are in a position to move rapidly. Certainly the previous vote
of 63 to 37 in 2006 shows substantial support in this body, and the
235-to-193 vote to override President Bush's veto shows the same in the
House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join me in this
effort so this important scientific research may be continued.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed statement be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Stem Cell Research Advancement Act

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today
to introduce the

[[Page S7037]]

``Stem Cell Research Advancement Act'' to codify the
provisions set out in President Obama's executive order on
embryonic stem cell research.
I believe medical research should be pursued with all
possible haste to cure the diseases and maladies affecting
Americans. As former Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I backed up this belief by
supporting increases in funding for the National Institutes
of Health. When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending
totaled $3.6 billion. In fiscal year 2010, NIH will receive
approximately $31 billion to fund its pursuit of lifesaving
research. Regrettably, increases in Federal funding for NIH
have steadily declined since 2003. The $10 billion for the
National Institutes of Health that was included in the
stimulus package provided an immediate infusion of new
research dollars for medical research to make up for a
portion of what was lost since 2003 and has had tremendous
influence on the biomedical research community. The successes
realized by this investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary
advances in our knowledge and treatment for diseases such as
cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, mental
illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS, and
many others. For example, in the 1950's, cardiovascular
disease caused half of U.S. deaths. Today, the death rate for
coronary heart disease is more than 60 percent lower. Over
the past 25 years, the 5-year survival rate for prostate
cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent for
diagnosed patients. For all childhood cancers combined, 5-
year relative survival has improved markedly over the past 30
years, from less than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80
percent today. It is clear to me that Congress's commitment
to the NIH is paying off. This is the time to seize the
scientific opportunities that lie before us and to ensure
that all avenues of research toward cures--including stem
cell research--remain open for investigation.
I first learned of the potential of human embryonic stem
cells in November of 1998 upon the announcement of the work
by Dr. Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin and Dr.
John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University. I took an
immediate interest and held the first congressional hearing
on the subject of stem cells less than one month later on
December 2, 1998. These cells are pluripotent, meaning they
have the ability to become any type of cell in the human
body. The consequences of this unique property of stem cells
are far reaching and are key to their potential use in
therapies. Scientists and doctors with whom I have spoken--
and that have since testified before the Labor-HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee at 20 stem cell-related
hearings--were excited by this discovery. They believed that
these cells could be used to replace damaged or
malfunctioning cells in patients with a wide range of
diseases. This could lead to cures and treatments for
maladies such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular diseases, and spinal cord
injury.
Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that would
otherwise have been discarded. During the course of in vitro
fertilization therapies, 4 to 16 embryos are created for a
couple having difficulty becoming pregnant. The embryos grow
for 5 to 7 days until they contain approximately 100 cells.
To maximize the chances of success, several embryos are
implanted into the woman. The remaining embryos are frozen
for future use. If the woman becomes pregnant after the first
implantation, and does not want to have more pregnancies, the
remaining frozen embryos are in excess of clinical need and
can be donated for research. Embryonic stem cells are derived
from these embryos. The stem cells form what are called
``lines'' and continue to divide indefinitely in a laboratory
dish. The stem cells contained in these lines can then be
made into almost any type of cell in the body--with the
potential to replace cells damaged by disease or accident. At
no point in the derivation process are the embryos or the
derived cells implanted in a woman, which would be required
for them to develop further. The process of deriving stem
cell lines results in the disruption of the embryo and I know
that this raises some concerns.
More than 400,000 embryos are stored in fertility clinics
around the country. If these frozen embryos were going to be
used for in vitro fertilization, I would be the first to
support it. In fact, I have included funding in the HHS
budget each year since 2002 to create and continue an embryo
adoption awareness campaign. For fiscal year 2010, this
campaign is funded at $4.2 million. But the truth is that
most of these embryos will be discarded, while they hold the
key to curing and treating diseases that cause suffering for
millions of people.
President Bush opened the door to stem cell research on
August 9, 2001. His policy statement allowed limited Federal
funding of human embryonic stem cell research for the first
time. A key statement by the President related to the
existence of approximately 60 eligible stem cell lines--then
expanded to 78. In the intervening years, it became apparent
that many of the lines cited were not really viable, robust,
or available to federally funded researchers. During that
time, there were only 21 lines available for research.
On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act by a vote of 63 to 37. This was the
House companion to S. 471, which I introduced, and would lift
the federal date restriction and allow federally-funded
scientists to research a greater number of stem cell lines
derived from human embryos that have been donated from in
vitro fertilization clinics. It also included stronger
ethical requirements on stem cell lines eligible for funding
including: donor consent, certification that embryos donated
are in excess of clinical need, and certification that the
embryos would be otherwise discarded. Unfortunately, on July
19, 2006, President Bush vetoed H.R. 810 and the House failed
to override the veto by a vote of 235-193, 48 votes short of
the two-thirds needed.
On March 19, 2007, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, President Bush's
appointee to lead the National Institutes of Health,
testified before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the NIH
budget and stem cells. At that time he stated, ``It is clear
today that American science would be better served and the
nation would be better served if we let our scientists have
access to more cell lines. . .To sideline NIH in such an
issue of importance, in my view, is shortsighted. I think it
wouldn't serve the nation well in the long run.''
On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order
removing restrictions on federal research on human embryonic
research. On July 7, 2009, NIH issued the National Institutes
of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Stem Cells
specifying the requirements that must be met for an embryonic
stem cell line to be eligible for use in NIH-funded research.
Embryonic stem cell lines must be derived from donated human
embryos created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive
purposes, but no longer needed for that purpose, and donated
with voluntary informed consent. This action and research
advancement resulted in 75 stem cell lines available for NIH
research.
Regrettably, on August 23, 2010, Chief Judge Lamberth of
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled
that such research violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment.
Since fiscal year 1996, the Dickey-Wicker amendment has been
added to each year's Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education appropriations legislation to prohibit the use of
federal funds for research that destroys human embryo. This
policy precludes the use of federal funding to derive stem
cells from embryos, which typically are produced via in vitro
fertilization. However, it has always been interpreted as
allowing federal funds for research that utilizes human
embryonic stem cells as long as no federal funds were used
for their derivation.
According to a legal opinion issued by the HHS General
Council Harriet Rabb in 1999, federal funding for research
performed with embryonic stem cells themselves, which does
not itself involve embryos or the extraction of stem cells
from embryos, is not proscribed by the Dickey amendment. The
opinion states: ``Pluripotent stem cells are not organisms
and do not have the capacity to develop into an organism that
could perform all the life functions of a human being. They
are, rather, human cells that have the potential to evolve
into different types of cells such as blood cells or insulin
producing cells. Pluripotent stem cells do not have the
capacity to develop into a human being, even if transferred
to a uterus. Based on an analysis of the relevant law and
scientific facts, federally funded research that utilizes
human pluripotent stem cells would not be prohibited by the
HHS appropriations law prohibiting human embryo research,
because such stem cells are not human embryos.''
In their memorandum in support of dismissing the case
before Judge Lamberth, the Department of Justice argued that
``Congress has expressly interpreted Dickey-Wicker to permit
federal funding for stem cell research that is `dependent
upon' the destruction of human embryos.'' As part of this
argument, they cited a floor statement I gave in 1999, in
regard to the NIH's fiscal year 2000 budget. In that
statement, I explained that the budget for NIH maintained the
Dickey-Wicker amendment by permitting research to go forward
now with private funding extracting the stem cells from
embryos, and then the federal funding coming in on the stem
cells which have been extracted.
Judge Lamberth's ruling has jeopardized NIH grants that are
in various stages of research. In response to this court
order, the NIH suspended funding new human embryonic stem
cell research and all experiments already underway will be
cut off when they come up for renewal. Even a temporary
suspension of funding will disrupt the work on these
important research projects in the areas of heart disease,
sickle cell anemia, liver failure, muscular dystrophy and
other maladies. According to the National Institutes of
Health, to date, $546 million has been spent on human
embryonic stem cell research and phenomenal progress has
already been made in realizing the possible benefits. For
example, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a
clinical trial for patients with spinal cord injury and human
embryonic stem cell research is successfully being used to
develop new therapeutic drugs for a number of diseases,
including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and spinal muscular
atrophy. The research, some of which has been ongoing since
2002, could be gone forever or take years to recreate.
Though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
granted a stay of Judge

[[Page S7038]]

Lamberth's temporary injunction while the Obama
administration appeals the decision, the uncertainty created
by the ruling slows the progress of science. Young scientists
rightly void fields of science for which funding may come and
go due to political whim rather than scientific and medical
merit. A temporary end to the current restrictions is an
incomplete and ultimately self-defeating solution.
The Stem Cell Research Advancement Act would codify federal
funding of embryonic stem cell research. The bill requires
the Secretary of HHS and Director of NIH to maintain
guidelines on human stem cell research as set out by
President Obama's Executive Order. The NIH must review the
guidelines at least every three years and shall update them
as scientifically warranted. The bill also establishes
eligibility criteria for federal funding of human stem cell
research:
The stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from
in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for reproductive
purposes, and are in excess of clinical need.
The embryos to be donated would never be implanted in a
woman and would otherwise be discarded.
The individuals seeking reproductive treatment donated the
embryos with written informed consent and without any
financial or other inducements.
Importantly, the bill does not allow Federal funds to be
used for the derivation of stem cell lines--the step in the
process where the embryo is destroyed.
I strongly believe that the funding provided by Congress
should be invested in the best research to address diseases
based on medical need and scientific opportunity. Politics
has no place in the equation. I urge this body to support the
Stem Cell Research Advancement Act so that scientists can
continue important research without concerns that federal
policy on stem cells will change with each new
administration.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me salute my colleague from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. He will be leaving the
Senate at the end of this year. He has done many things throughout his
senatorial career, but I am glad he brought the attention of the Senate
this afternoon to his extraordinary effort when it comes to the field
of medical research. When the record is written on his service to our
country and to the Senate, I think the list will begin with his
commitment to dramatic increases in medical research at the National
Institutes of Health.
Senator Specter is leaving the floor now, but I can tell you, during
the course of his remarks I was reminded of how many times he came to
the Appropriations Committee and challenged us to raise more money for
medical research. His challenges were met with cooperation on a
bipartisan basis in the Senate. I don't know that anyone can even
measure how many lives have been saved by that extraordinary
investment. But he made that commitment as a Senator and he continues
to make it in the field of stem cell research.
The point he makes is irrefutable. If these stem cells are not used
for research to find cures for deadly, crippling diseases, they will be
discarded--thrown away. It is not a question of whether they will be
human lives at some point, human embryos. They are going to be thrown
away, discarded because they were not used during the course of efforts
of young couples to enlarge their families. I think it is only
appropriate that we use these stem cells to save lives, to spare misery
and spare suffering, and I certainly agree with Senator Specter's
conclusion.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Franken):
S. 3767. A bill to establish appropriate criminal penalties for
certain knowing violations relating to food that is misbranded or
adulterated; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food
Safety Accountability Act with Senators Klobuchar and Franken. This
common sense bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply
accountable for their crimes. It introduces a new criminal provision
and 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.
This summer, a salmonella outbreak causing hundreds of people to fall
ill triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still
under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is all too common and
sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct. Just 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 merely the cost of doing business. Indeed, the
company responsible for the eggs at the root of the current salmonella
crisis has a long history of environmental, immigration, labor and food
safety violations. It is clear that civil and criminal fines are not
enough 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. The bill I introduce today will add a new
criminal provision and increase sentences for people who put profits
above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply.
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 were
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. Our laws must be strengthened to ensure this does not
happen again. This bill significantly increases the chances that those
who commit food safety crimes 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 the
hundreds of individuals sickened by this summer's and last year's
salmonella outbreaks, 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. If Congress
acts to pass it, 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. 3767

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 Accountability
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1041. Misbranded and adulterated food

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
knowingly--
``(1) introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate
commerce any food that is adulterated or misbranded; or
``(2) adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate
commerce.
``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than
10 years, or both.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 47 of

[[Page S7039]]

title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``1041. Misbranded and adulterated food.''.
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 3768. A bill to eliminate certain provisions relating to Texas and
the Education Jobs Fund; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I
introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768.
When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund
bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and
every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except
for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are
introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every
other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill.
The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an
amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas,
unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years
of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the
funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in
America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year.
Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does
not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of
another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period.
Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself.
It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would
require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the
Federal money that every other State has as an allocation.
The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is
to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every
other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education
the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within
its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue.
In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every
State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the
State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed,
would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the
State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant
Governor.
It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this
way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not
continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation
of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and
the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated
$830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the
Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the
legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So
Texas has just been turned down.
If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing
today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going
to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an
amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try
to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that
will just create a level playing field.
We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also
asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided
Texas should have a different standard.
We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument
between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to
penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas,
every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right.
I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that
reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the
same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars
just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America.
Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being
penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described
happens in the bill.
The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we
are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level
playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with
Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation
in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want
to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We
need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in
our rightful way.
We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to
meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant
application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible
in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from
every other State in America.
Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from
the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see
that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on
this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not
think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State.
That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be
starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other
State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine.
Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn
legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that
we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year
of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which
I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then,
second, that we be able to distribute according to the State
requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding
formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and
our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things
and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I
think it will be the right thing to do.
Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think
anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one
Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision
that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every
State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of
about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas.
If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress
and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some
of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now
saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I
hope we can right this wrong.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Hutchison and I
have introduced legislation to repeal a House provision in the
Education Jobs Bill that discriminates solely against the state of
Texas. As a result of the House language, Texas will be denied over
$800 million in federal funding.
The Hutchison-Cornyn bill will strip the language requiring Texas to
make a commitment for three years of funding in order to be eligible
for any of the $10 billion in the Education Jobs Fund. To be in
compliance with the provision, the state would have to violate its own
constitution. The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine
state appropriations--they cannot be dictated by the federal
government. Additionally, one legislature cannot bind a future
legislature. Moreover, this provision singles out Texas because all
other states must only commit to one year of funding in order to
receive Education Jobs Program funding.
The House language also stipulates that Texas must distribute funds
through Title I funding formula, rather than allowing the governor to
determine the funding distribution, as is the case in the other states
and territories. In Texas this would preclude 31 districts from
receiving any funds, and will result in less funding for 66 percent of
the state's school districts.
Unfortunately, on September 9, 2010 the U.S. Department of Education
denied an application from Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott
for

[[Page S7040]]

$830 million from the Education Jobs Fund.
The real impact of the House language, however, is felt in school
districts across our state. Recently, for example, I received a letter
from the Superintendent of the Hamlin Independent School District
informing me that the West Texas school district was forced to cut more
than $80,000 from the district's budget to cover rising salary costs.
If Texas is prohibited from applying for the Education Jobs Fund,
Hamlin ISD stands to lose over $90,000 in federal dollars, an amount
that could compensate for the district's current budget cuts.
Our bill would put a stop to Texas Democrats' efforts to play
politics with much-needed funding for Texas schools and teachers. Texas
taxpayer dollars belong in Texas schools--not in California or New
York, as the Doggett Amendment would have it. I urge my colleagues to
pass our bill so we can remove this partisan roadblock and move quickly
to restore critical Federal funding to Texas schools.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dodd,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms.
Landrieu, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Shaheen, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 3772. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 3772

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 ``Paycheck Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over
the past 50 years.
(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men
for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the
private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay
disparities can only be due to continued intentional
discrimination or the lingering effects of past
discrimination.
(3) The existence of such pay disparities--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the
wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
(B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often
based on earnings while in the workforce;
(C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor
resources;
(D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and
the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the
workers of the several States;
(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in
commerce;
(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in
commerce;
(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods
in commerce; and
(I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal
protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and
14th amendments.
(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex
continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part,
because the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not worked as Congress
originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the
provisions added by the Act are necessary to ensure that the
provisions provide effective protection to those subject to
pay discrimination on the basis of their sex.
(C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive
effects, including--
(i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created
by unfair pay disparities;
(ii) substantially reducing the number of working women
earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence
on public assistance;
(iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family
members to earn a fair rate of pay;
(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the
basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are
afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress's power
to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission have important and unique
responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay
for equal work.
(6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
(A) collecting and making publicly available information
about women's pay;
(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts
comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action
requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal
employment opportunity);
(C) disseminating information about women's rights in the
workplace;
(D) helping women who have been victims of pay
discrimination obtain a remedy; and
(E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal
pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in
enforcing all of its mandates.
(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the
primary enforcement agency for claims made under the
provisions added by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and issues
regulations and guidance on appropriate interpretations of
the law.
(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their
responsibilities, increased information about the provisions
added by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more
effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize
and enforce their rights.
(9) Certain employers have already made great strides in
eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their
achievements should be recognized.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Bona Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same
Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A)
No employer having'';
(2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and
inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as
education, training, or experience''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in
subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer
demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or
derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii)
is job-related with respect to the position in question; and
(iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense
shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an
alternative employment practice exists that would serve the
same business purpose without producing such differential and
that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative
practice.
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be
deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees
work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same
county or similar political subdivision of a State. The
preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader
applications of the term `establishment' consistent with
rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission.''.
(b) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``employee has
filed'' and all that follows through ``committee;'' and
inserting ``employee--
``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or
instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act,
including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has
testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or
participated in any manner in any such investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action, or has served or is planning
to serve on an industry committee; or
``(B) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the wages
of the employee or another employee;''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in
which an employee who has access to the wage information of
other employees as a part of such employee's essential job
functions discloses the wages of such other employees to an
individual who does not otherwise have access to such
information, unless such disclosure is in response to a
charge or complaint or in furtherance of an investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including
an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an
employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
(c) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally
be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the
employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or
reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be
appropriate, except that the United States shall not be
liable for punitive damages.'';
(2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking
``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection'';

[[Page S7041]]

(3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by
striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect
to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no
employee'';
(4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in
paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce
section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
(5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
(A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any
action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
including expert fees''.
(d) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of
section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as
described in subsection (b),'' before ``and the agreement'';
and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section
6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as
described in subsection (b)'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first
sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence'';
and
(4) in the last sentence--
(A) by striking ``commenced in the case'' and inserting
``commenced--
``(1) in the case'';
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce
section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a
party plaintiff to the class action.''.

SEC. 4. TRAINING.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the
availability of funds appropriated under section 10, shall
provide training to Commission employees and affected
individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination
in the payment of wages.

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation
with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish
and carry out a grant program.
(2) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary of
Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible
entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs
for girls and women.
(3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency,
such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan
statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational
agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-
based organization.
(4) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may
require.
(5) Use of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under
this subsection shall use the funds made available through
the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills
training program that empowers girls and women. The training
provided through the program shall help girls and women
strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and
women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation
that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male
employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue
regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating
the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable,
into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Education that the
Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report describing the activities
conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness
of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide
information to employers, labor organizations, and the
general public concerning the means available to eliminate
pay disparities between men and women, including--
(1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means
to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay
disparities;
(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers,
labor organizations, professional associations, educational
institutions, the media, and the general public the findings
resulting from studies and other materials, relating to
eliminating the pay disparities;
(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community
informational and educational programs;
(4) providing information to employers, labor
organizations, professional associations, and other
interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay
disparities;
(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of
employers, labor organizations, and professional associations
that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
(6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider
approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN
THE WORKPLACE.

(a) In General.--There is established the Secretary of
Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which
shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive
efforts to comply with section 6(d) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)).
(b) Criteria for Qualification.--The Secretary of Labor
shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a
requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to
eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves
special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The
Secretary shall establish procedures for the application for
and presentation of the award.
(c) Employer.--In this section, the term ``employer''
includes--
(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
(B) a partnership;
(C) a professional association;
(D) a labor organization; and
(E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any
of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a
training program, such as an apprenticeship or management
training program, or a similar program; and
(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a
combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or
(2).

SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
``(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently
available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay
information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with
other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data
collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws;
and
``(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations
under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the
collection of pay information data from employers as
described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
``(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall
have as its primary consideration the most effective and
efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the
Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of
burdens on employers, the frequency of required data
collection reports (including which employers should be
required to prepare reports), appropriate protections for
maintaining data confidentiality, and the most effective
format for the data collection reports.''.

SEC. 9. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY
DATA COLLECTION.

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The
Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect
data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics
survey.
(b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the
Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at
the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation
discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of
types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a
small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or
anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and
enforcement activities, shall define ``similarly situated
employees'' in a way

[[Page S7042]]

that is consistent with and not more stringent than the
definition provided in item 1 of subsection A of section 10-
III of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance
Manual (2000), and shall consider only factors that the
Office's investigation reveals were used in making
compensation decisions; and
(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as
required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on September 7, 2006), designating
not less than half of all nonconstruction contractor
establishments each year to prepare and file such survey, and
shall review and utilize the responses to such survey to
identify contractor establishments for further evaluation and
for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
(c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination
Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily
available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and
through any other forum that the Department may use to
distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate
information on compensation discrimination, including
statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical
analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers
on compliance, and any other information that will assist the
public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this Act.
(b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the
grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a
congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

(a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance Materials.--The Secretary of Labor
and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance
material to assist small businesses in complying with the
requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(c) Small Businesses.--A small business shall be exempt
from the provisions of this Act to the same extent that such
business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of
section 3(s)(1)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A)).

SEC. 12. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act,
shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to
fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including
any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Graham, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Burr, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Bond, Mrs.
Hutchison, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3773. A bill to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief
provisions and to provide permanent AMT relief and estate tax relief,
and for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 3773

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 ``Tax Hike Prevention Act of
2010''.

TITLE I--PERMANENT TAX RELIEF

SEC. 101. 2001 TAX RELIEF MADE PERMANENT.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is repealed.

SEC. 102. 2003 TAX RELIEF MADE PERMANENT.

Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003 is repealed.

SEC. 103. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate
shall not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate a draft of any technical and conforming changes in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are necessary to reflect
throughout such Code the purposes of the provisions of, and
amendments made by, this Act.

TITLE II--PERMANENT INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF

SEC. 201. PERMANENT INDIVIDUAL AMT RELIEF.

(a) Modification of Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption
Amount.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount)
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Exemption amount for taxpayers other than
corporations.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the term `exemption amount' means--
``(A) the dollar amount for taxable years beginning in the
calendar year as specified in the table contained in
paragraph (4)(A) in the case of--
``(i) a joint return, or
``(ii) a surviving spouse,
``(B) the dollar amount for taxable years beginning in the
calendar year as specified in the table contained in
paragraph (4)(B) in the case of an individual who--
``(i) is not a married individual, and
``(ii) is not a surviving spouse,
``(C) 50 percent of the dollar amount applicable under
paragraph (1)(A) in the case of a married individual who
files a separate return, and
``(D) $22,500 in the case of an estate or trust.

For purposes of this paragraph, the term `surviving spouse'
has the meaning given to such term by section 2(a), and
marital status shall be determined under section 7703.''.
(2) Specified exemption amounts.--Section 55(d) of such
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Specified exemption amounts.--
``(A) Taxpayers described in paragraph (1)(A).--For
purposes of paragraph (1)(A)--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
``For taxable years beginning in-- exemption
amount is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010....................................................... $72,450
2011....................................................... $74,450
2012....................................................... $78,250
2013....................................................... $81,450
2014....................................................... $85,050
2015....................................................... $88,650
2016....................................................... $92,650
2017....................................................... $96,550
2018....................................................... $100,950
2019....................................................... $105,150
2020....................................................... $109,950.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(B) Taxpayers described in paragraph (1)(B).--For
purposes of paragraph (1)(B)--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
``For taxable years beginning in-- exemption
amount is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010....................................................... $47,450
2011....................................................... $48,450
2012....................................................... $50,350
2013....................................................... $51,950
2014....................................................... $53,750
2015....................................................... $55,550
2016....................................................... $57,550
2017....................................................... $59,500
2018....................................................... $61,700
2019....................................................... $63,800
2020....................................................... $66,200.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Alternative Minimum Tax Relief for Nonrefundable
Credits.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 26 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate
amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable
year shall not exceed the sum of--
``(1) the taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable
year reduced by the foreign tax credit allowable under
section 27(a), and
``(2) the tax imposed by section 55(a) for the taxable
year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Adoption credit.--
(i) Section 23(b) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4).
(ii) Section 23(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection
(a) for any taxable year exceeds the limitation imposed by
section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of the
credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section
and sections 25D and 1400C), such excess shall be carried to
the succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for such taxable year.''.
(iii) Section 23(c) of such Code is amended by
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(B) Child tax credit.--
(i) Section 24(b) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (3).
(ii) Section 24(d)(1) of such Code is amended--

(I) by striking ``section 26(a)(2) or subsection (b)(3), as
the case may be,'' each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) and inserting ``section 26(a)'', and
(II) by striking ``section 26(a)(2) or subsection (b)(3),
as the case may be'' in the second last sentence and
inserting ``section 26(a)''.

(C) Credit for interest on certain home mortgages.--Section
25(e)(1)(C) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Applicable tax limit.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `applicable tax

[[Page S7043]]

limit' means the limitation imposed by section 26(a) for the
taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits allowable
under this subpart (other than this section and sections 23,
25D, and 1400C).''.
(D) Savers' credit.--Section 25B of such Code is amended by
striking subsection (g).
(E) Residential energy efficient property.--Section 25D(c)
of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this
section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding
taxable year and added to the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.''.
(F) Certain plug-in electric vehicles.--Section 30(c)(2) of
such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(G) Alternative motor vehicle credit.--Section 30B(g)(2) of
such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(H) New qualified plug-in electric vehicle credit.--Section
30D(c)(2) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(I) Cross references.--Section 55(c)(3) of such Code is
amended by striking ``26(a), 30C(d)(2),'' and inserting
``30C(d)(2)''.
(J) Foreign tax credit.--Section 904 of such Code is
amended by striking subsection (i) and by redesignating
subsections (j) , (k), and (l) as subsections (i), (j), and
(k), respectively.
(K) First-time home buyer credit for the district of
columbia.--Section 1400C(d) of such Code is amended to read
as follows:
``(d) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A (other than this section and section 25D), such
excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and
added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such
taxable year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.

TITLE III--PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF

SEC. 301. APPLICATION OF ESTATE, GENERATION-SKIPPING
TRANSFER, AND GIFT TAXES AFTER 2009.

(a) In General.--The following provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the
amendments made by such provisions, are repealed on and after
January 1, 2010, with respect to decedents dying on and after
such date, and on and after January 1, 2011, with respect to
gifts made and generation-skipping transfers on and after
such date:
(1) Subtitles A and E of title V.
(2) Subsection (d), and so much of subsection (f)(3) as
relates to subsection (d), of section 511.
(3) Paragraph (2) of subsection (b), and paragraph (2) of
subsection (e), of section 521.
Except in the case of an election under section 404, the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such
provisions and amendments had never been enacted.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 2511
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is repealed on and after
January 1, 2011, with respect to gifts made on and after such
date.

SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF UNIFIED CREDIT AND MAXIMUM ESTATE TAX
RATE AFTER 2009.

(a) Restoration of Unified Credit Against Gift Tax.--
Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to general rule for unified credit against
gift tax), after the application of section _01, is amended
by striking ``(determined as if the applicable exclusion
amount were $1,000,000)''.
(b) Exclusion Equivalent of Unified Credit Equal to
$5,000,000.--Subsection (c) of section 2010 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to unified credit against
estate tax) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax
which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount
with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed
were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2010, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(c) Maximum Estate Tax Rate Equal to 35 Percent.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2001 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition and
rate of tax) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Over $500,000'' and all that follows in
the table contained in paragraph (1) and insert the
following:

``Over $500,000........................... $79,300, plus 35 percent of
the excess of such amount
over $500,000.'',

(B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'', and
(C) by striking paragraph (2).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of
section 2102(b) of such Code are amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--A credit in an amount that would be
determined under section 2010 as the applicable credit amount
if the applicable exclusion amount were $60,000 shall be
allowed against the tax imposed by section 2101.
``(2) Residents of possessions of the united states.--In
the case of a decedent who is considered to be a `nonresident
not a citizen of the United States' under section 2209, the
credit allowed under this subsection shall not be less than
the proportion of the amount that would be determined under
section 2010 as the applicable credit amount if the
applicable exclusion amount were $175,000 which the value of
that part of the decedent's gross estate which at the time of
the decedent's death is situated in the United States bears
to the value of the decedent's entire gross estate, wherever
situated.''.
(d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect
Differences in Unified Credit Resulting From Different Tax
Rates.--
(1) Estate tax.--
(A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to computation of tax) is amended by
striking ``if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect
at the decedent's death)'' and inserting ``if the
modifications described in subsection (g)''.
(B) Modifications.--Section 2001 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect
Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection
(b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax
under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall,
in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such
gifts, be used both to compute--
``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such
gifts, and
``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section
2505, including in computing--
``(A) the applicable credit amount under section
2505(a)(1), and
``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all
preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).

For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), the applicable credit
amount for any calendar year before 1998 is the amount which
would be determined under section 2010(c) if the applicable
exclusion amount were the dollar amount under section
6018(a)(1) for such year.''.
(2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) of such Code (relating to
unified credit against gift tax) is amended by adding at the
end the following new flush sentence:

``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar
year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for
such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in
effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining
the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all
preceding calendar periods.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying, generation-
skipping transfers, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.

SEC. 303. UNIFIED CREDIT INCREASED BY UNUSED UNIFIED CREDIT
OF DECEASED SPOUSE.

(a) In General.--Section 2010(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended by section 302(b), is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, and
``(B) in the case of a surviving spouse, the aggregate
deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.
``(3) Basic exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
basic exclusion amount is $5,000,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2010, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

[[Page S7044]]

``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.
``(4) Aggregate deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--
For purposes of this subsection, the term `aggregate deceased
spousal unused exclusion amount' means the lesser of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, or
``(B) the sum of the deceased spousal unused exclusion
amounts computed with respect to each deceased spouse of the
surviving spouse.
``(5) Deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `deceased spousal
unused exclusion amount' means, with respect to the surviving
spouse of any deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2009,
the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount of the deceased spouse,
over
``(B) the amount with respect to which the tentative tax is
determined under section 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such
deceased spouse.
``(6) Special rules.--
``(A) Election required.--A deceased spousal unused
exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving
spouse under paragraph (5) unless the executor of the estate
of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which
such amount is computed and makes an election on such return
that such amount may be so taken into account. Such election,
once made, shall be irrevocable. No election may be made
under this subparagraph if such return is filed after the
time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing such
return.
``(B) Examination of prior returns after expiration of
period of limitations with respect to deceased spousal unused
exclusion amount.--Notwithstanding any period of limitation
in section 6501, after the time has expired under section
6501 within which a tax may be assessed under chapter 11 or
12 with respect to a deceased spousal unused exclusion
amount, the Secretary may examine a return of the deceased
spouse to make determinations with respect to such amount for
purposes of carrying out this subsection.
``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 302(a), is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) the applicable credit amount in effect under section
2010(c) which would apply if the donor died as of the end of
the calendar year, reduced by''.
(2) Section 2631(c) of such Code is amended by striking
``the applicable exclusion amount'' and inserting ``the basic
exclusion amount''.
(3) Section 6018(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``applicable exclusion amount'' and inserting ``basic
exclusion amount''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying, generation-
skipping transfers, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.

SEC. 304. SPECIAL ELECTION FOR DECEDENTS DYING IN 2010.

In the case of any decedent dying in 2010, the executor of
the estate of such decedent may elect to apply the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 without regard to the provisions of, and
the amendments made by, this title (other than this section).
Such election shall be made at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary of the Treasury shall provide.

____________________