[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S412-S425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORKER (for himself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Alexander, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
        Kirk):
  S. 245. A bill to reduce Federal spending in a responsible manner; to 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to be here today with the 
Senator from Missouri, my friend Claire McCaskill. We are introducing a 
bill called the Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the CAP Act. It 
is a 10-page bill designed to limit spending in Washington and set our 
country back on a sustainable fiscal path.
  We have cosponsors in Senators Alexander, Burr, McCain, Isakson, 
Chambliss, Inhofe, and Kirk. I thank them for joining us in this 
effort. I hope many more will do the same.
  I spent a lifetime in business, and I came to the Senate not to score 
political points, not to be involved in messaging, but to solve our 
country's problems. Everyone in this body understands we have 
tremendous fiscal and financial issues with which to deal. This morning 
I was happy to see 33 Senators meet over at the visitor center from 
both sides of the aisle to listen to people involved in the financial 
industry talking about the path we are on and what that is going to 
lead to as far as the ruination of our fiscal situation and our ability 
to borrow money at low rates as we are today. All of us know what that 
will mean to our citizens.
  There is no one who doesn't understand how problematic our financial 
situation is. I know the Congressional Budget Office just said that 
this year alone we will have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. I think 
everyone in this body is very aware that we cannot continue on that 
path. For that reason, Senator McCaskill and I have crafted a 10-page 
bill, a very simple bill. It does a lot, but there are not a lot of 
whereases. One of its purposes is to cap spending relative to economy.
  Most people understand that when we look at economies in other 
countries of the world, people look at the amount of spending their 
government does relative to their economic output. Senator McCaskill's 
husband is a businessman. When he looks at the amount of debt he has in 
his company, he looks at that in relation to revenues and the amount of 
income he has and his ability to pay the debt. That is the way the 
world looks at the health of countries.
  For the last 4 years--this is the post-entitlement period--our 
country has been spending 20.6 percent of our GDP or economic output at 
the Federal level. Everybody knows that right now we are way above that 
number, at over 24 percent. So again, not to try to create some 
messaging tool but to solve this problem, Senator McCaskill and I have 
joined to say we need to get back to the norm over a 10-year period, on 
a glide path that takes us back to fiscal health and to that 20.6 
percent of our economy being spent at the Federal level.
  The legislation calls for multiyear averaging so we can make sure 
that economic differentials don't create volatility, so we know exactly 
what those targets are in advance, so we can go about our work in 
appropriations in a methodical and thoughtful way. In addition, it 
creates something called sequestration. That means if Congress does not 
have the courage, which we recently have not shown, to do the things it 
needs to do to make those cuts to live within this glide path we have 
laid out, then sequestration will take place. The Office of Management 
and Budget, 45 days after the end of the year, if we have not done 
those things

[[Page S413]]

we need to do to make sure we are on this glide path, will, on a pro 
rata basis, take money out of the accounts of both mandatory and 
nonmandatory spending. In addition, if there is an emergency that comes 
up, it would take a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress to 
overcome those spending limits.
  To my knowledge, this is the first time in the entitlement era that 
we have ever tried to put in place a total spending limit on 
government. Many of us talk about discretionary spending. All of us 
know that discretionary spending is less than a third of all Federal 
spending. All of us know that if we don't redesign the entitlement 
programs that are about two-thirds of our spending at the Federal 
level, then there is no way for us to deal appropriately with this 
issue. So for this reason, this bill would kick in, if it is 
implemented, in 2013, giving us time to redesign the entitlement 
programs, especially Medicare and Social Security, so that we know they 
are here for future generations, so we know that seniors have the 
benefits they need.
  This is the first time we would be putting everything on the table in 
a comprehensive way as we look at the Federal budget. Simply, this bill 
will cause us to live within our means.
  The problem we find ourselves in today is not a Republican problem or 
a Democratic problem. Both parties have contributed to the situation. 
What this bill would require us to do is to set priorities. It would 
mean that we would have to ensure that programs are being run as 
effectively and efficiently as possible. I know our main cosponsor, 
Senator McCaskill, has spent a lot of time looking at waste and abuse 
within the Federal Government. One of the best things about this bill 
is, if we want to limit spending relative to the country's economic 
output, it is obviously easier to do so if the economy is growing. So 
what that would mean is that both parties would be joined at the hip to 
put in place policies that promote economic growth.
  I thank Senator McCaskill for her courage in stepping forth with me 
and others on this bill. It is my hope that we will have people from 
both sides of the aisle who will join us in this effort. Again, this is 
being put forth as a serious bill. It is a bill that has no ideology 
base, simply a bill to solve a problem. We are going to a 40-year 
average of spending relative to our country's gross domestic product. 
We are not trying to do things differently than in the past. Both of us 
know we have not had the courage in recent times to live within our 
means, to set priorities as they need to be set. This bill is something 
that will take us toward that end.
  We have a very monumental vote that will be taking place a little bit 
later in the year regarding the debt ceiling. All of us know it would 
be irresponsible not to be responsible prior to that debt ceiling vote. 
We offer this bill as a responsible way to put us on a glide path 
toward a place that is reasonable for this country, giving us time to 
redesign the programs that need to be redesigned. It is my hope this 
bill or something of its nature will pass prior to the debt ceiling 
vote. It is also my hope that we will go ahead and vote on actual cuts 
to the Federal budget prior to that time so we can show markets around 
the world and the American people that we have the ability to work 
together to solve what I think is our most pressing domestic issue and 
that is getting our fiscal house in order.
  I again thank Senator McCaskill. She has been a leader on fiscal 
issues since she has been here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, like my colleague, I appreciate the 
work he has done on this issue. We have been talking about this for a 
number of weeks. Our staffs have been hammering out the details.
  I will be candid. As I left my office, some members of my staff said: 
OK, good luck walking that plank. We will see how it works out for you. 
Because this is politically risky, what the Senator and I are trying to 
do. As I was riding over here on the tram to make this speech, I got a 
text message from one of my kids. All of a sudden it became clear to me 
what this is like. This is like saying no when you are a parent. It is 
so easy to say yes to your kids. When they want something, when they 
want to do something we think is risky, the easiest thing in the world 
to do is to say yes.
  When they want money, when they want to have a new car, when they 
want to borrow your car, when they want to go spend the night at a 
friend's you do not know very well, when they want to stay out later, 
when they want this, that, when they want to go to the mall, it is so 
easy to say yes. It does not take a lot of time. It makes them happy. 
You feel good. But there is always that voice in your head that says: 
If I am going to be a good parent, sometimes it is more important to 
say no.
  Well, we have a bunch of people in Congress who have made a lifetime 
career of saying yes. I understand it. We run for office around here. 
We want everyone to be happy with us. We want everyone to love us. We 
do not want to disappoint anyone. We do not want there to be 
controversy about the decisions we make. So how do we avoid the 
controversy? We say yes. We say yes. And we have said yes and yes and 
yes until we find ourselves at this point in our history where our 
unwillingness to say no, our unwillingness to embrace controversy and 
political risk, has led us to an economic brink, a place where if we do 
not do something that is going to make some people angry, that is going 
to cause some negative ads to be run against us, then we are not doing 
our job as stewards. That is all we are here. We are passing through. 
We are not entitled to these jobs. We borrowed these jobs. They belong 
to the American people, and we have a responsibility as stewards to say 
no now, to say no.
  I remember when I used to tell my kids: It is so much easier for me 
to tell you yes. And they would say: Well, it is easier for you. It was 
easier for me. I would say: The right thing to do is for me to say no. 
And they would say: Well, that is not easier for us.
  That is beginning to be what is happening around here. I have noticed 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We are 
going to cut, cut, cut, cut. Now it is all bubbling up, with all the 
people saying: No, you can't cut our subsidy; No, you can't cut the oil 
company subsidy; you can't cut a farm program; you can't cut this; you 
can't cut that. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to protect the 
spending that is embraced by our bad habit of saying yes.
  So that is why this bill is necessary. This is like telling Congress: 
You have to be better parents, and if you cannot muster the courage to 
say no, these cuts are going to happen anyway. It is like a discipline 
for us. And I do not go here lightly. I do not go here without 
understanding the political risks involved. But I go here because I 
deeply believe it is necessary for our country. We cannot get control 
of the deficit if we do not control spending.
  Let me talk for a minute about debt and deficit because as I go out 
and talk to people, there are a lot of people who use those two terms 
interchangeably. They do not understand. There is a big difference 
between the debt and the deficit. The deficit is like your monthly 
budget and not having enough money to come in to meet your monthly 
expenses. We talk about the deficit on an annual basis: How much money 
is the government bringing in and how much money is going out. When 
more is going out than coming in, we have a deficit.
  What happens to that deficit every year? It goes on our debt. It is 
like a family's mortgage. But instead of us paying down the mortgage 
every year, we keep adding to the mortgage every year. That is why we 
now have a $1.4, $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We are going to spend 
that much more than we take in this year. We have $14 trillion in debt. 
That is the long-term mortgage our country has right now that we owe 
someone that we have to pay. So we have to get hold of this debt.
  I want to compliment the President of the United States because the 
short-term spending stuff is important. And I want to compliment 
Senator Sessions. He and I have worked on short-term spending caps for 
over a year. But now it is time for us to look at long-term discipline 
and what we can do to get our country on a glide path where we no 
longer are precariously on the edge of not being the strongest economic 
power in the world.

[[Page S414]]

  Our deficits are unsustainable and our debt is out of control. This 
bill takes a very measured approach, gives us time to figure things 
out. It is not like the ridiculous proposal over in the House where we 
are going to cut $2.5 trillion this year. Anybody who thinks that is 
going to happen, I have a tutu you need to wear down the hall tomorrow. 
That is a ridiculous proposal. That is impossible to do. But this bill 
is possible and responsible. This puts us on a glide path to say to the 
American people that our spending is going to be capped at a certain 
percentage of our economic activity in this country. That is possible, 
and it is responsible, and we should do it.
  Who is to blame? Let's be honest about how we got here. The biggest 
factor in our deficits the last 2 years is our poor economy. I know, I 
know; you would think it is the stimulus. You would think it is TARP. 
It is not. Political cheap shots but not true. The biggest fiscal hole 
we are facing is because of the poor economy.
  The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 years? You would think 
it was the auto bailouts or you would think it was the bank bailout or 
you would think it was the stimulus. It was not. Do you know what the 
biggest increase in spending was over the last 2 years? Unemployment 
benefits because of our bad economy. That was the biggest increase in 
spending over the last 2 years. Our fiscal hole has grown primarily 
because of a bad economy over the last 2 years.
  But there also have been bad decisions by both parties over the last 
decade. When Clinton left office, our debt--he may have been running a 
surplus in terms of the deficit, but our debt was $5.7 trillion. When 
Bush left office, he had doubled it from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 
trillion. And today it is $14 trillion.
  Over the past decade, we have had two wars we did not bother to pay 
for, a brandnew Medicare entitlement--brand spanking new--that was not 
means tested. We are buying Warren Buffett's prescription drugs. Go 
figure. Like we are busted and we are buying multihundred-million-
dollar billionaires prescription drugs, and we did not bother to pay 
for it. We have had increases in discretionary spending by both parties 
that increased our deficit and exceeded inflation.
  I want to talk a minute about the boogie man of the TARP and the 
stimulus. I am so sick of that being blamed. It is so wrong and 
factually incorrect. We have tax cuts that go on forever that have 
contributed to this. We have wars that we are fighting that have 
contributed to this. We have entitlement programs that are not paid 
for. But the stimulus was a one-time expenditure. It is not something 
that goes on. It has no tail.
  Anyone who understands economics and understands the balance sheet of 
the U.S. Government knows this problem was not the stimulus. One-third 
of the stimulus was tax cuts. The last time I looked, unpaid-for tax 
cuts were the way of the world. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. 
Another third of it, almost, was unemployment benefits. That is not the 
problem. And TARP? Let's be honest. It was a genius decision in many 
ways because it stabilized our financial sector, and it has cost us a 
mere fraction of the money that was used on a temporary basis to make 
sure our economy did not twist down the drain, as it was likely to do 
had President Bush not intervened with his economic team to ask us on a 
bipartisan basis to do something that was in the best interest of our 
Nation.
  We can move on as to who is to blame because now we have to talk 
about tomorrow's problems. I am proud the President is dealing with 
short-term spending by his freeze. I am proud he is working on earmarks 
and all of the other things that are a symptom of the disease around 
here. But our challenge is long-term spending. In the long term, 
spending is going to drive the debt up even higher. Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts are going to double by 2021. Social Security is going to 
increase by 70 percent by 2021.
  We have to look at those issues and make sure on a bipartisan basis 
we do what is responsible. We have to make sure these programs--
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are stable and secure for my 
children and their children. If we cannot agree even on the modest 
measures such as the 3-year discretionary spending cap Senator Sessions 
and I have been pushing for over a year, I question whether we have the 
discipline to do the hard work. Getting control of spending is very 
hard, but we have to do it, and we have to do it now.
  First and foremost, we need to focus on eliminating the waste and 
mismanagement. That is what drives Americans crazy. It drives people 
crazy that we are spending money on duplicative programs and we are not 
even checking to see if they work. It drives them crazy when the 
Federal Government runs huge deficits and we are paying out $55 billion 
in improper payments at Health and Human Services and $12 billion of 
improper payments by Treasury to people who do not even qualify.
  It drives Americans crazy when we do not make the reforms our 
auditors recommend. The Defense Department has 1,200 suggestions that 
have been made by our government auditors about how it can manage its 
money and its programs better, and they have not acted on almost 1,200 
of them. It drives people crazy we are running deficits when we have 
Departments such as the Agriculture Department and Homeland Security 
that get failing management grades for 8 straight years. And it drives 
people crazy when we are running deficits and we are passing 
appropriations bills with $15 billion worth of earmarks.
  I have been working hard to try to clean up all this waste. We have 
been working on contract management. I have never requested an earmark. 
I voted against every omnibus appropriations bill that has come to the 
floor since I have been a Senator, and I have worked hard for the last 
year with Senator Sessions to cap spending. Now I look forward to 
working hard with Senator Corker and many of my friends in the 
Republican Party to work on the Corker-McCaskill bill to put a cap long 
term on spending in the Federal Government.
  As I say, this is a bold step. It has risks. And if this bill is 
distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. I will say that 
again. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my 
Senate seat. But it is a price I am willing to pay. It is a price I am 
willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it is a price I am 
willing to pay for my grandchildren.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. 
        Gillibrand):
  S. 247. A bill to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical 
Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 
National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, 
Maryland, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, on the first day of Black History 
Month, I am proud to reintroduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical 
Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical 
Park Act. I am joined by Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Gillibrand 
as original co-sponsors.
  The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in 
approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland and given the name 
Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery 
on Maryland's Eastern Shore. As an adult she took the first name 
Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman.
  Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead 
of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that, to 
this day, comprise the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape. She did so 
alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her 
hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned 
repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in 
Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse 
conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to 
freedom in the Northeastern United States. Tubman became known as 
``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She is the most 
famous and most important conductor of the network of resistance known 
as the Underground Railroad.
  During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a 
scout and

[[Page S415]]

a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida and South Carolina. She is 
credited with leading slaves from those slave states to freedom during 
those years.
  Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was 
active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one 
of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged. In 1903 she 
bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in 
Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there 
in the Fort Hill Cemetery.
  Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many 
were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their 
owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the 
early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern 
Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman 
lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also 
notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In 
particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, 
her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where 
she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries 
of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
  Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to 
freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in 
Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the 
plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were 
she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she 
knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to 
their freedom.
  In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with 
Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman 
Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME 
Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.
  In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special 
Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit 
of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has 
taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the 
lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has 
never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her 
contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the 
most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, 
however, has been exceedingly difficult. Eventually, the National Park 
Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would 
include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate 
tribute to the life of this extraordinary American. The New York unit 
would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of 
Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes 
that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The 
Special Resource Study, completed by the National Park Service in the 
Fall of 2008, confirmed these findings and on July 15, 2009, the 
National Park Service endorsed S. 227 as introduced in the 111th 
Congress during a legislative hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee.
  During the process of preparing S. 227 for markup in the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, 
Mr. Bingaman, drafted a substitute amendment of the bill. The contents 
of the Bingaman substitute are the result of his work to accommodate 
concerns that the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee had with S. 227 as introduced. An agreement was 
reached on the contents of the substitute amendment. An opportunity to 
mark up S. 227, consider the Bingaman substitute, and hold a vote in 
Committee never happened in the final months of the 111th Congress.
  The legislation I am introducing today incorporates the proposed 
changes from the Bingaman substitute to S. 227. The bill establishes 
two parks.
  The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park is comprised of important 
historical structures in Auburn, NY. They include Tubman's home, the 
Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal 
AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.
  The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park 
includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and 
Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet 
Tubman.
  In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would 
include about 2,775 acres. All of these parcels are located within the 
established master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife 
Refuge but are not currently owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. The four parcels located within the Blackwater National 
Wildlife Refuge Boundary, are sites significant to the life of Harriet 
Tubman. These parcels include the Anthony Thompson plantation parcel 
where Harriet Tubman likely was born, The Brodess Plantation parcel 
where Tubman worked as a young girl, the Cook Plantation parcel where 
as a teenager Harriet Tubman worked as a seamstress, and the Jacob 
Jackson parcel which is believed to be the location of one of the first 
safe houses along the Underground Railroad. The Park would be 
established upon the fee simple acquisition, by the National Park 
Service, of any of these parcels located within the current boundary of 
the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
  Additional areas that would comprise the Harriet Tubman historic area 
include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar 
Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of 
viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be 
included in the Park. These parcels are authorized to come under 
protection through conservation easements held by the private property 
owners.
  The bill authorizes such sums as necessary to meet the goals and 
objectives of the bill. Funds can be used for the construction of the 
Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center, through a cost sharing 
requirement, for easements, or acquisition of the designated parcels 
eligible for fee simple acquisition.
  Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom 
liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles 
and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has 
earned a nation's respect and honor.
  Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that we honor and 
celebrate every February during Black History Month. In schools across 
the country, American History curriculums teach our children about 
Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her 
contributions to the greatness of our nation during a contentious time 
in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by 
preserving, protecting and commemorating the places evocative of 
Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life.
  I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet 
Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground 
Railroad National Historical Park. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to establish this important and fitting tribute to Harriet 
Tubman, a life worthy of recognition.
  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. 247

       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 ``Harriet Tubman National 
     Historical Parks Act''.

     SEC. 2. HARRIET TUBMAN UNDERGROUND RAILROAD NATIONAL 
                   HISTORICAL PARK, MARYLAND.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Historical park.--The term ``historical park'' means 
     the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical 
     Park established by subsection (b)(1)(A).
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Authorized Acquisition Area for the Proposed Harriet Tubman 
     Underground Railroad National Historical Park'', numbered 
     T20/80,001, and dated July 2010.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Maryland.

[[Page S416]]

       (b) Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical 
     Park.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), there is 
     established the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, 
     Maryland, as a unit of the National Park System.
       (B) Determination by secretary.--The historical park shall 
     not be established until the date on which the Secretary 
     determines that a sufficient quantity of land, or interests 
     in land, has been acquired to constitute a manageable park 
     unit.
       (C) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary makes a determination under subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of 
     the establishment of the historical park, including an 
     official boundary map for the historical park.
       (D) Availability of map.--The official boundary map 
     published under subparagraph (C) shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in appropriate offices of the 
     National Park Service.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the historical park is to 
     preserve and interpret for the benefit of present and future 
     generations the historical, cultural, and natural resources 
     associated with the life of Harriet Tubman and the 
     Underground Railroad.
       (3) Land acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land and 
     interests in land within the areas depicted on the map as 
     ``Authorized Acquisition Areas'' by purchase from willing 
     sellers, donation, or exchange.
       (B) Boundary adjustment.--On acquisition of land or an 
     interest in land under subparagraph (A), the boundary of the 
     historical park shall be adjusted to reflect the acquisition.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historical park in accordance with this section and the laws 
     generally applicable to units of the National Park System, 
     including--
       (A) the National Park System Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (2) Interagency agreement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date on which the historical park is established, the 
     Director of the National Park Service and the Director of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall enter into an 
     agreement to allow the National Park Service to provide for 
     public interpretation of historic resources located within 
     the boundary of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge that 
     are associated with the life of Harriet Tubman, consistent 
     with the management requirements of the Refuge.
       (3) Interpretive tours.--The Secretary may provide 
     interpretive tours to sites and resources located outside the 
     boundary of the historical park in Caroline, Dorchester, and 
     Talbot Counties, Maryland, relating to the life of Harriet 
     Tubman and the Underground Railroad.
       (4) Cooperative agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with the State, political subdivisions of the 
     State, colleges and universities, non-profit organizations, 
     and individuals--
       (i) to mark, interpret, and restore nationally significant 
     historic or cultural resources relating to the life of 
     Harriet Tubman or the Underground Railroad within the 
     boundaries of the historical park, if the agreement provides 
     for reasonable public access; or
       (ii) to conduct research relating to the life of Harriet 
     Tubman and the Underground Railroad.
       (B) Visitor center.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the State to design, construct, 
     operate, and maintain a joint visitor center on land owned by 
     the State--
       (i) to provide for National Park Service visitor and 
     interpretive facilities for the historical park; and
       (ii) to provide to the Secretary, at no additional cost, 
     sufficient office space to administer the historical park.
       (C) Cost-sharing requirement.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of 
     any activity carried out under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed 50 percent.
       (ii) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of carrying out an activity under this paragraph may 
     be in the form of in-kind contributions or goods or services 
     fairly valued.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall prepare a general management plan for the 
     historical park in accordance with section 12(b) of Public 
     Law 91-383 (commonly known as the ``National Park Service 
     General Authorities Act'') (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
       (2) Consultation.--The general management plan shall be 
     prepared in consultation with the State (including political 
     subdivisions of the State).
       (3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     preparation and implementation of the management plan with--
       (A) the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge;
       (B) the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park established 
     by section 3(b)(1)(A); and
       (C) the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 3. HARRIET TUBMAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, AUBURN, NEW 
                   YORK.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Historical park.--The term ``historical park'' means 
     the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park established by 
     subsection (b)(1)(A).
       (2) Home.--The term ``Home'' means The Harriet Tubman Home, 
     Inc., located in Auburn, New York.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Harriet 
     Tubman National Historical Park'', numbered T18/80,000, and 
     dated March 2009.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New York.
       (b) Harriet Tubman National Historical Park.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), there is 
     established the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in 
     Auburn, New York, as a unit of the National Park System.
       (B) Determination by secretary.--The historical park shall 
     not be established until the date on which the Secretary 
     determines that a sufficient quantity of land, or interests 
     in land, has been acquired to constitute a manageable park 
     unit.
       (C) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary makes a determination under subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of 
     the establishment of the historical park.
       (D) Map.--The map shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in appropriate offices of the National Park 
     Service.
       (2) Boundary.--The historical park shall include the 
     Harriet Tubman Home, the Tubman Home for the Aged, the 
     Thompson Memorial AME Zion Church and Rectory, and associated 
     land, as identified in the area entitled ``National 
     Historical Park Proposed Boundary'' on the map.
       (3) Purpose.--The purpose of the historical park is to 
     preserve and interpret for the benefit of present and future 
     generations the historical, cultural, and natural resources 
     associated with the life of Harriet Tubman.
       (4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land and 
     interests in land within the areas depicted on the map by 
     purchase from a willing seller, donation, or exchange.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historical park in accordance with this section and the laws 
     generally applicable to units of the National Park System, 
     including--
       (A) the National Park System Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (2) Interpretive tours.--The Secretary may provide 
     interpretive tours to sites and resources located outside the 
     boundary of the historical park in Auburn, New York, relating 
     to the life of Harriet Tubman.
       (3) Cooperative agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with the owner of any land within the historical 
     park to mark, interpret, or restore nationally significant 
     historic or cultural resources relating to the life of 
     Harriet Tubman, if the agreement provides that--
       (i) the Secretary shall have the right of access to any 
     public portions of the land covered by the agreement to allow 
     for--

       (I) access at reasonable times by historical park visitors 
     to the land; and
       (II) interpretation of the land for the public; and

       (ii) no changes or alterations shall be made to the land 
     except by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the owner of 
     the land.
       (B) Research.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with the State, political subdivisions of the 
     State, institutions of higher education, the Home and other 
     nonprofit organizations, and individuals to conduct research 
     relating to the life of Harriet Tubman.
       (C) Cost-sharing requirement.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of 
     any activity carried out under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed 50 percent.
       (ii) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may 
     be in the form of in-kind contributions or goods or services 
     fairly valued.
       (D) Attorney general.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the Attorney 
     General for review any cooperative agreement under this 
     paragraph involving religious property or property owned by a 
     religious institution.
       (ii) Finding.--No cooperative agreement subject to review 
     under this subparagraph shall take effect until the date on 
     which the Attorney General issues a finding that the proposed 
     agreement does not violate the Establishment Clause of the 
     first amendment to the Constitution.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall prepare a general management plan for the 
     historical park in accordance with section 12(b) of Public 
     Law 91-383 (commonly

[[Page S417]]

     known as the ``National Park Service General Authorities 
     Act'')(16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
       (2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     preparation and implementation of the management plan with--
       (A) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
     Historical Park established by section 2(b)(1); and
       (B) the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this Act, except that not more than $7,500,000 shall be 
     available to provide financial assistance under subsection 
     (c)(3).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, and Ms. 
        Landrieu):
  S. 248. A bill to allow an earlier start fof State health care 
coverage innovation waivers under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Empowering 
States to Innovate Act with my colleagues, Senators Scott Brown and 
Mary Landrieu.
  At a time when we are looking for ways to bring this country together 
to deal with the most contentious issues of our time, we ought to be 
supporting innovation. We ought to be supporting unleashing creative 
kinds of approaches to deal with domestic issues. That is the 
foundation of this legislation.
  What Senators Brown, Landrieu and I are seeking to do is to show it 
is possible on a significant issue--I think we all understand health 
care is about as important as it gets--that we can come together, and 
facilitate this kind of innovation. It is pretty clear that what works 
in Springfield, OR, may not be exactly ideal for Springfield, MA. But 
what we can do is come up with a way to provide more flexibility and 
particularly more choice and more competition for our States and other 
States around the country.
  If we can just move away from a Federal cookie-cutter approach and 
encourage the kind of creative thinking we have seen in Oregon and in 
Massachusetts and other parts of the country, I think we will be well 
served and will be in a position to better contain health care costs. I 
think we all understand that how to rein in these medical costs that 
are gobbling up everything in sight is first and foremost on the minds 
of our constituents.
  The Empowering States to Innovate Act encourages additional 
innovative approaches in States, approaches that are tailored to the 
needs of States' own residents, that will help us, in my view, to 
promote choice and competition in the American health care system. As 
long as they meet certain requirements as far as coverage and 
affordability are met, the States are free to do whatever they choose. 
I just offer up my own judgment that right now, at a time when most 
Americans still don't get much choice in their health care coverage, 
this is an ideal opportunity that both Democrats and Republicans can 
support. As States seek to go forward with this approach, they can make 
their own choices.
  In particular, what I have been concerned about, after talking to 
health policymakers over the last few months, is if, in the State of 
New York, for example, you go out and set up a process to comply with 
the legislation for purposes of 2014 and you see that the waiver, as 
now constituted under 1332, starts in 2017, you say: How am I going to 
reconcile those two? Am I going to set up one approach for 2014 and 
then do another approach in 2017? It is going to put us through a lot 
of bureaucratic water torture to try to figure out how to synchronize 
those two dates. So it only makes sense to speed it all up and make it 
possible for everybody to get started in 2014.
  We have outlined the two key changes in the legislation that is law 
today. The first change is to make the waivers effective in 2014 rather 
than in 2017 so States only have to change their systems once. The 
second thing the Empowering States to Innovate Act does is it requires 
the Department of Health and Human Services to begin to review State 
waiver applications within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. 
This would allow States early notification of whether their State 
waivers have been approved and would give them adequate time to roll 
out their State-specific plans. I think this, too, will help us create 
more competition, more choice, and more affordability in American 
health care because it will give the States adequate time to gear up. 
That is the philosophy behind the Empowering States to Innovate Act, 
whether one likes one particular approach or another. Clearly, there 
will be great diversity of approaches tried at the State level.
  This legislation offers an opportunity for States to engage in a 
``race to the top'' for what will deliver the best health care choices 
and options to their constituents. This provides a chance for States to 
do it better. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to give States that chance.
  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. 248

       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 ``Empowering States to 
     Innovate Act''.

     SEC. 2. EARLIER START FOR STATE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE 
                   INNOVATION WAIVERS.

       Section 1332(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2017'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2014''; and
       (2) by inserting ``beginning not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the Empowering States to 
     Innovate Act'' after ``application'' in paragraph (4)(B)(ii).

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to join my 
colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce legislation that will protect 
Massachusetts by allowing it to waive out of specific requirements 
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  As my colleagues know, my single priority is and has always been to 
ensure that what we do here in Washington does not harm my State of 
Massachusetts, or the people of Massachusetts, and that we are 
responsible stewards with every tax dollar.
  This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on 
families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for 
commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. 
And it has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health 
care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations 
that have occurred in Massachusetts.
  Today we get to make a correction to the Federal health care reform 
bill to be sure that we are doing the right thing, not just for the 
State of Massachusetts but for other States who seek to waive out of 
certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law.
  In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing 
health care reform--expanding access, designing systems to increase 
market participation and choice, and increasing transparency for 
consumers and providers. We continue to learn lessons every day in 
Massachusetts about what works and doesn't work in health care reform.
  And this is an important point because it speaks directly to the 
purpose of the 1egislation that I am introducing today with my 
colleague, Mr. Wyden from Oregon.
  As difficult as it is for me to admit this, not every State wants to 
be like Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a great State, with the best 
hospitals, physicians, researchers and health care providers in the 
country and the world.
  But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in 
protecting the reform efforts of Oregon. He doesn't want to be like 
Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's 
insurance market is different, its provider network is different, its 
beneficiaries and population are different from Massachusetts. Oregon 
might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I 
do not like or that would not work in a State like Massachusetts. The 
same is true for the other 49 States--each State is different, unique--
and each State should be able to find solutions that work for their 
citizens and their State budgets.
  Which is why the legislation that I am introducing today with Mr. 
Wyden--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important.

[[Page S418]]

  Right now, as provided under section 1332--``The Waivers for State 
Innovation''--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States 
can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That's the good 
news. The bad news is that this waiver authority is not scheduled to 
take effect until 2017, a full 3 years after PPACA is scheduled to be 
fully implemented.
  That makes no sense, so we are going to fix it.
  The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of 
specific parts of PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not 
just from an operational standpoint--because PPACA takes effect in 
2014--but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should 
Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform 
bill when it may have already met and or exceeded specific provisions 
of PPACA? Holding Massachusetts back--limiting my State's ability to 
innovate, remain flexible and responsive to the health care market-- 
costs money; it costs taxpayer money.
  That doesn't make sense. So our legislation fixes that.
  The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty 
with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible for a waiver 
and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some 
certainty for those States who apply for a waiver by requiring the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications 
within 6 months of enactment of this bill. The earlier a State knows 
whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing 
its specific plans and proposals.
  Taken together, these two changes are good for Massachusetts. They 
are good for other States who are trying to innovate and advance in the 
areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage.
  During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is 
from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State 
innovation and flexibility.
  And I quote:

       The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not 
     just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that 
     we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for a long 
     time. I think we should be doing everything we can to 
     encourage it.

  I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of state rights and 
for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's 
interference.
  We should be encouraging State innovation, not hampering it.
  And that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does--it helps 
ensure that States aren't held back from innovating and seeking 
solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, their 
providers, and their communities.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to associate myself with Mr. Wyden's 
comments about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform 
debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it 
is good for States like Massachusetts. It is good for States like 
Oregon and Utah, who have begun to make changes and reforms at the 
State level.
  The legislation provides flexibility and says that a one-size-fits-
all health care system doesn't fit the needs of every State. I know a 
Federal standard isn't in the best interest of my State of 
Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do.
  I thank my colleague, Mr. Wyden, for his thoughtful remarks and urge 
my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that I think 
both parties can and should agree on.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. 
        Harkin):
  S. 250. A bill to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the 
substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and 
convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of 
Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and 
development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training 
programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide 
post conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to 
improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice 
for All Reauthorization Act of 2011. The Justice for All Act, passed in 
2004, was unprecedented, bipartisan criminal justice legislation. It 
was Congress's most significant step forward in many years to improve 
the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence 
in the integrity of the American justice system.
  After several hearings and much work, with this legislation we 
continue the process of building on that foundation to go still further 
in making sure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively 
for all Americans. Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken, and Senator 
Harkin join me today as original cosponsors of this important bill, and 
I thank them for their ongoing support.
  I also appreciate the involvement of Senators on the other side of 
the political aisle, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have 
participated in the development of this bill and provided valuable 
input. I am confident that this bill will pass with bipartisan support, 
as the original Justice for All Act did, and I look forward to working 
with Senators from both parties to reach that goal.
  In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to 
improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in 
the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where 
appropriate, access to post conviction DNA testing necessary to prove 
their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously 
wrong.
  The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice 
for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that 
crime victims have the rights and protections they need and deserve and 
that States and communities take major steps to reduce the backlog of 
untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual 
assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the 
Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice 
reform.
  The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous 
impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the 
Judiciary Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear 
that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant 
problems remain, and we must work together to address them.
  In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested 
rape kits have been found, many of which have not even made their way 
to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in 
fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem.
  The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to 
reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live 
in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after 
Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before 
her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her 
husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not 
experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for 
their continuing help on this extremely important cause.
  Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has 
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the 
testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators 
of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each 
year.
  As I have researched this problem of untested rape kits, there is one 
thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has 
been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the 
Justice Department, States including my home State of Vermont, law 
enforcement, and victims' advocates that Debbie Smith grants have led 
to significant and meaningful backlog reduction, and to justice for 
victims, in jurisdictions across the country.

[[Page S419]]

  Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the 
significant Federal funding for backlog reduction, we have seen 
alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A study in 2008 found 12,500 
untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone, and while Los Angeles 
has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have 
now reported backlogs almost as severe. In 2009, the Justice Department 
released a report finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape 
cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab.
  That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem 
that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to 
crime labs for testing, if samples that could help make cases instead 
sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, 
that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the 
importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing 
is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions rape kits taken 
from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these 
samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off 
the street--are sitting untested.
  The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the 
problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices 
and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical 
assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. 
The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their 
rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, 
improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking 
other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the 
labs to be tested.
  The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by 
calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog'' 
covering both the law enforcement and lab stages and by implementing 
public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs 
are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the 
best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape 
victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new 
accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is 
being spent effectively and appropriately.
  The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no 
rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits 
and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator 
Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I 
thank him for his help.
  In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have also seen 
too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in 
jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable 
may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent 
man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it 
should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all 
defendants receive quality representation.
  The Justice for All Reauthorization Act takes important new steps to 
ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation 
and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former 
prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, 
and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice 
system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the 
system only works as it should when each side is well represented by 
competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is 
retained and tested.
  Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence 
exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent 
person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, 
the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, 
which makes all of us less safe.
  This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all 
criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, 
receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the 
Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an 
effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes 
a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are 
systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the 
constitution.
  This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and 
time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive 
for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the 
importance of quality defense counsel. It was persuasive to me when 
Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary 
Committee that it helps her do her job as a prosecutor when there are 
competent defense attorneys. I have also learned through this process 
that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the 
most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also 
save States money.
  This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not 
punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening Kirk Bloodsworth 
Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs 
created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young 
man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and 
sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was 
the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row 
crime through the use of DNA evidence.
  This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like 
Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA 
evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing 
the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program 
put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the 
Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an 
impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest 
authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the 
conditions set for this program so that participating States are 
required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required 
to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to 
participate.
  The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their 
criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal 
justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of 
the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill 
reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas 
throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases 
authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement 
Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories 
in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving 
crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' 
longstanding support for this important program.
  Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It 
gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their 
rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it 
takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their 
legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their 
leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these 
provisions.
  In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this 
bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total 
authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these 
changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save 
money in the long term.
  I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations 
that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law 
attempts to solve. Numerous organizations including the Fraternal Order 
of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National 
District Attorneys' Association have expressed strong support for this 
bill.
  Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system 
in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all 
sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge

[[Page S420]]

they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a 
criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and 
accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will 
take important steps to bring us closer to that goal.
  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. 250

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for All 
     Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

       Section 3771 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The right to be informed of the rights under this 
     section and the services described in section 503(c) of the 
     Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of 
     the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of 
     Justice.'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(3), in the fifth sentence, by 
     inserting ``, unless the litigants, with the approval of the 
     court, have stipulated to a different time period for 
     consideration'' before the period; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``this chapter, the term'' and inserting 
     the following: ``this chapter:
       ``(1) Court of appeals.--The term `court of appeals' 
     means--
       ``(A) for a violation of the United States Code, the United 
     States court of appeals for the judicial district in which a 
     defendant is being prosecuted; and
       ``(B) for a violation of the District of Columbia Code, the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
       ``(2) Crime victim.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term'';
       (B) by striking ``In the case'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Minors and certain other victims.--In the case''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) District court; court.--The terms `district court' 
     and `court' include the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS FOR CRIME 
                   VICTIMS.

       (a) Crime Victims Legal Assistance Grants.--Section 103(b) 
     of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 
     Stat. 2264) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2009'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$300,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016'';
       (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$7,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$11,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016''; 
     and
       (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``$5,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$7,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016''.
       (b) Crime Victims Notification Grants.--Section 1404E(c) of 
     the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603e(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``this section--'' and all that follows 
     and inserting ``this section $5,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.''.

     SEC. 4. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `backlog for DNA case work' has the meaning 
     given that term by the Director, in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(3);
       ``(2) the term `Combined DNA Index System' means the 
     Combined DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation;
       ``(3) the term `Director' means the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice;
       ``(4) the term `emergency response provider' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101); and
       ``(5) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(b) Establishment of Protocols, Technical Assistance, and 
     Definitions of Evidence Backlog for DNA Case Work.--
       ``(1) Protocols and practices.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Justice for All 
     Reauthorization Act of 2011, the Director shall develop and 
     publish a description of protocols and practices the Director 
     considers appropriate for the accurate, timely, and effective 
     collection and processing of DNA evidence, including 
     protocols and practices specific to sexual assault cases, 
     which shall address appropriate steps in the investigation of 
     cases that might involve DNA evidence, including--
       ``(A) how to determine--
       ``(i) which evidence is to be collected by law enforcement 
     personnel and forwarded for testing;
       ``(ii) the preferred order in which evidence from the same 
     case is to be tested; and
       ``(iii) the preferred order in which evidence from 
     different cases is to be tested;
       ``(B) the establishment of a reasonable period of time in 
     which evidence is to be forwarded by emergency response 
     providers, law enforcement personnel, and prosecutors to a 
     laboratory for testing;
       ``(C) the establishment of reasonable periods of time in 
     which each stage of analytical laboratory testing is to be 
     completed; and
       ``(D) systems to encourage communication within a State or 
     unit of local government among emergency response providers, 
     law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, courts, defense 
     counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and crime victims 
     regarding the status of crime scene evidence to be tested.
       ``(2) Technical assistance and training.--The Director 
     shall make available technical assistance and training to 
     support States and units of local government in adopting and 
     implementing the protocols and practices developed under 
     paragraph (1) on and after the date on which the protocols 
     and practices are published.
       ``(3) Definition of backlog for dna case work.--The 
     Director shall develop and publish a definition of the term 
     `backlog for DNA case work' for purposes of this section--
       ``(A) taking into consideration the different stages at 
     which a backlog may develop, including the investigation and 
     prosecution of a crime by law enforcement personnel, 
     prosecutors, and others, and the laboratory analysis of crime 
     scene samples; and
       ``(B) which may include different criteria or thresholds 
     for the different stages.
       ``(c) Authorization of Grants for the Collection and 
     Processing of DNA Evidence by Law Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     States or units of local government which may be used to--
       ``(A) ensure that the collection and processing of DNA 
     evidence from crimes, including sexual assault and other 
     serious violent crimes, is carried out in an appropriate and 
     timely manner;
       ``(B) eliminate existing backlogs for DNA case work, 
     including backlogs from sexual assault cases; and
       ``(C) ensure effective communication among emergency 
     response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, 
     courts, defense counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and 
     crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence to 
     be tested.
       ``(2) Application.--A State or unit of local government 
     desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the 
     Attorney General an application in such form and containing 
     such information as the Attorney General may require, which 
     shall include--
       ``(A) providing assurances that the State or unit of local 
     government has implemented, or will implement not later than 
     120 days after the date of the application, a comprehensive 
     plan for the expeditious collection and processing of DNA 
     evidence in accordance with this section; and
       ``(B) specifying the percentage of the amounts received 
     under the grant that the State or unit of local government 
     shall use for the purpose specified in each of subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Collection and processing of samples.--A plan 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)--
       ``(A) shall require a State or unit of local government 
     to--
       ``(i) adopt the appropriate protocols and practices 
     developed under subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(ii) ensure that emergency response providers, law 
     enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and crime laboratory 
     personnel within the jurisdiction of the State or unit of 
     local government receive training on the content and 
     appropriate use of the protocols and practices; and
       ``(B) may include the development and implementation within 
     the State or unit of local government of an evidence tracking 
     system to ensure effective communication among emergency 
     response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, 
     defense counsel, courts, crime laboratory personnel, and 
     crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence 
     subject to DNA analysis.
       ``(4) Reporting and publication of dna backlogs.--
       ``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall require a State or unit of local government to submit 
     to the Attorney General an annual report reflecting the 
     current backlog for DNA case work within the jurisdiction in 
     which the funds are used, which shall include--
       ``(i) a specific breakdown of the number of sexual assault 
     cases that are in a backlog for DNA case work and the 
     percentage of the amounts received under the grant allocated 
     to reducing the backlog of DNA case work in sexual assault 
     cases;
       ``(ii) for each case that is in a backlog for DNA case 
     work, the identity of each agency, office, or contractor of 
     the State or unit of local government in which work necessary 
     to complete the DNA analysis is pending; and
       ``(iii) any other information the Attorney General 
     determines appropriate.

[[Page S421]]

       ``(B) Compilation.--The Attorney General shall annually 
     compile and publish the reports submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) on the website of the Department of Justice.
       ``(d) Authorization of Grants for DNA Testing and Analysis 
     by Laboratories.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     States or units of local government to--
       ``(A) carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index 
     System, DNA analyses of samples collected under applicable 
     legal authority;
       ``(B) carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index 
     System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, including 
     samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault 
     evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified 
     suspect;
       ``(C) increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the 
     State or unit of local government to carry out DNA analyses 
     of samples specified in subparagraph (A) or (B);
       ``(D) collect DNA samples specified in subparagraph (A); 
     and
       ``(E) ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples from 
     crimes, including sexual assault and other serious violent 
     crimes, are carried out in a timely manner.
       ``(2) Application.--A State or unit of local government 
     desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the 
     Attorney General an application in such form and containing 
     such information as the Attorney General may require, which 
     shall include--
       ``(A) providing assurances that the State or unit of local 
     government has implemented, or will implement not later than 
     120 days after the date of the application, a comprehensive 
     plan for the expeditious DNA analysis of samples in 
     accordance with this section;
       ``(B) certifying that each DNA analysis carried out under 
     the plan shall be maintained in accordance with the privacy 
     requirements described in section 210304(b)(3) of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     14132(b)(3));
       ``(C) specifying the percentage of the amounts received 
     under the grant that the State or unit of local government 
     shall use to carry out DNA analyses of samples described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) and the percentage of the amounts the State 
     or unit of local government shall use to carry out DNA 
     analyses of samples described in paragraph (1)(B);
       ``(D) specifying the percentage of the amounts received 
     under the grant that the State or unit of local government 
     shall use for a purpose described in paragraph (1)(C);
       ``(E) if submitted by a unit of local government, 
     certifying that the unit of local government has taken, or is 
     taking, all necessary steps to ensure that the unit of local 
     government is eligible to include in the Combined DNA Index 
     System, directly or through a State law enforcement agency, 
     all analyses of samples for which the unit of local 
     government has requested funding; and
       ``(F) specifying the percentage of the amounts received 
     under the grant that the State or unit of local government 
     shall use for the purpose described in paragraph (1)(D).
       ``(3) Analysis of samples.--
       ``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall require that, except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     each DNA analysis be carried out in a laboratory that--
       ``(i) satisfies quality assurance standards; and
       ``(ii) is--

       ``(I) operated by the State or a unit of local government; 
     or
       ``(II) operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract 
     with the State or a unit of local government.

       ``(B) Quality assurance standards.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall maintain and make available to States and 
     units of local government a description of quality assurance 
     protocols and practices that the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation considers adequate to assure the 
     quality of a forensic laboratory.
       ``(ii) Existing standards.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     a laboratory satisfies quality assurance standards if the 
     laboratory satisfies the quality control requirements 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 210304(b) of 
     the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 14132(b)).
       ``(4) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain purposes.--
       ``(A) In general.--A grant for a purpose specified in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (E), or (F) of paragraph (1) may be 
     made in the form of a voucher or contract for laboratory 
     services, even if the laboratory makes a reasonable profit 
     for the services.
       ``(B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract under subparagraph 
     (A) may be redeemed at a laboratory operated on a nonprofit 
     or for-profit basis, by a private entity that satisfies 
     quality assurance standards and has been approved by the 
     Attorney General.
       ``(C) Payments.--The Attorney General may use amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section to make payments to a 
     laboratory described under subparagraph (B).
       ``(5) Reporting and publication of dna backlogs.--
       ``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall require the State or unit of local government to submit 
     to the Attorney General an annual report reflecting the 
     backlog for DNA case work within the jurisdiction in which 
     the funds will be used, which shall include--
       ``(i) a specific breakdown of the number of sexual assault 
     cases that are in a backlog for DNA case work and the 
     percentage of the amounts received under the grant allocated 
     to reducing the backlog of DNA case work in sexual assault 
     cases;
       ``(ii) for each case that is in a backlog for DNA case 
     work, the identity of each agency, office, or contractor of 
     the State or unit of local government in which work necessary 
     to complete the DNA analysis is pending; and
       ``(iii) any other information the Attorney General 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(B) Compilation.--The Attorney General shall annually 
     compile and publish the reports submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) on the website of the Department of Justice.
       ``(e) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     Attorney General shall distribute grant amounts, and 
     establish appropriate grant conditions under this section, in 
     conformity with a formula or formulas that are designed to 
     effectuate a distribution of funds among States and units of 
     local government applying for grants under this section 
     that--
       ``(A) maximizes the effective use of DNA technology to 
     solve crimes and protect public safety; and
       ``(B) allocates grants among States and units of local 
     government fairly and efficiently, across rural and urban 
     jurisdictions, to address States and units of local 
     government in which significant backlogs for DNA case work 
     exist, by considering--
       ``(i) the number of offender and casework samples awaiting 
     DNA analysis in a State or unit of local government;
       ``(ii) the population in the State or unit of local 
     government;
       ``(iii) the number of part 1 violent crimes in the State or 
     unit of local government; and
       ``(iv) the availability of resources to train emergency 
     response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, 
     and crime laboratory personnel on the effectiveness of 
     appropriate and timely DNA collection, processing, and 
     analysis.
       ``(2) Minimum amount.--The Attorney General shall allocate 
     to each State not less than 0.50 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in a fiscal year for grants under this section, 
     except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
     Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be 
     allocated 0.125 percent of the total amount appropriated in a 
     fiscal year for grants under this section.
       ``(3) Limitation.--In distributing grant amounts under 
     paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall ensure that for 
     each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, not less than 40 
     percent of the grant amounts are awarded for purposes 
     described in subsection (d)(1)(B).
       ``(f) Restrictions on Use of Fund.--
       ``(1) Nonsupplanting.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall not be used to supplant funds of a State or 
     unit of local government, and shall be used to increase the 
     amount of funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, 
     be made available from the State or unit of local government 
     for the purposes described in this Act.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--A State or unit of local 
     government may not use more than 3 percent of the amounts 
     made available under a grant under this section for 
     administrative expenses relating to the grant.
       ``(g) Reports to the Attorney General.--Each State or unit 
     of local government that receives a grant under this section 
     shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year in which 
     funds from a grant received under this section are expended, 
     a report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney 
     General may reasonably require, that contains--
       ``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the 
     grant and an assessment of whether such activities are 
     meeting the needs identified in the application; and
       ``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(h) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under 
     this section, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a 
     report that includes--
       ``(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this 
     section to each State or unit of local government for the 
     fiscal year;
       ``(2) a summary of the information provided by States or 
     units of local government receiving grants under this 
     section; and
       ``(3) a description of the priorities and plan for awarding 
     grants among eligible States and units of local government, 
     and how the plan will ensure the effective use of DNA 
     technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.
       ``(i) Expenditure Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State or unit of local government 
     that receives a grant under this section shall keep such 
     records as the Attorney General may require to facilitate an 
     effective audit of the receipt and use of grant funds 
     received under this section.
       ``(2) Access.--Each State or unit of local government that 
     receives a grant under this section shall make available, for 
     the purpose of audit and examination, any records relating to 
     the receipt or use of the grant.
       ``(j) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The 
     Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of 
     the amounts made available for grants under this section for 
     a fiscal year--
       ``(1) to States or units of local government to defray the 
     costs incurred by laboratories operated by each such State or 
     unit of local

[[Page S422]]

     government in preparing for accreditation or reaccreditation;
       ``(2) in the form of additional grants to States, units of 
     local government, or nonprofit professional organizations of 
     persons actively involved in forensic science and nationally 
     recognized within the forensic science community to--
       ``(A) defray the costs of external audits of laboratories 
     operated by the State or unit of local government, which 
     participates in the National DNA Index System, to determine 
     whether the laboratory is in compliance with quality 
     assurance standards;
       ``(B) assess compliance with any plans submitted to the 
     Director that detail the use of funds received by States or 
     units of local government under this section; and
       ``(C) support capacity building efforts; and
       ``(3) in the form of additional grants to nonprofit 
     professional associations actively involved in forensic 
     science and nationally recognized within the forensic science 
     community to defray the costs of training persons who conduct 
     external audits of laboratories operated by States and units 
     of local government and which participate in the National DNA 
     Index System.
       ``(k) Use of Funds for Other Forensic Sciences.--The 
     Attorney General may make a grant under this section to a 
     State or unit of local government to alleviate a backlog of 
     cases with respect to a forensic science other than DNA 
     analysis if the State or unit of local government--
       ``(1) certifies to the Attorney General that in such State 
     or unit--
       ``(A) all of the purposes set forth in subsections (c) and 
     (d) have been met;
       ``(B) there is not a backlog for DNA case work, as defined 
     by the Director in accordance with subsection (b)(3); and
       ``(C) there is no need for significant laboratory 
     equipment, supplies, or additional personnel for timely 
     processing of DNA case work or offender samples; and
       ``(2) demonstrates to the Attorney General that the State 
     or unit of local government requires assistance in 
     alleviating a backlog of cases involving a forensic science 
     other than DNA analysis.
       ``(l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--If a 
     laboratory operated by a State or unit of local government 
     which has received funds under this section has undergone an 
     external audit conducted to determine whether the laboratory 
     is in compliance with standards established by the Director 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as a result of 
     the audit, identifies measures to remedy deficiencies with 
     respect to the compliance by the laboratory with the 
     standards, the State or unit of local government shall 
     implement any such remediation as soon as practicable.
       ``(m) Penalty for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall annually 
     compile a list of the States and units of local government 
     receiving a grant under this section that have failed to 
     provide the information required under subsection (c)(4)(A), 
     (d)(5)(A), or (g). The Attorney General shall publish each 
     list complied under this paragraph on the website of the 
     Department of Justice.
       ``(2) Reduction in grant funds.--For any State or local 
     government that the Attorney General determines has failed to 
     provide the information required under subsection (c)(4)(A), 
     (d)(5)(A), or (g), the Attorney General may not award a grant 
     under this section for the fiscal year after the fiscal year 
     to which the determination relates in an amount that is more 
     than 50 percent of the amount the State or local government 
     would have otherwise received.
       ``(n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for 
     grants under subsections (c) and (d) $151,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall evaluate the policies, standards, and 
     protocols relating to the use of private laboratories in the 
     analysis of DNA evidence, including the mandatory technical 
     review of all outsourced DNA evidence by public laboratories 
     prior to uploading DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index 
     System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The evaluation 
     shall take into consideration the need to reduce DNA evidence 
     backlogs while guaranteeing the integrity of the Combined DNA 
     Index System.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation completes the evaluation under paragraph (1), 
     the Director shall submit to Congress a report of the 
     findings of the evaluation and any proposed policy changes.
       (c) Transition Provision.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``transition 
     date'' means the day after the latter of--
       (A) the date on which the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice publishes a definition of the term 
     ``backlog for DNA case work'' in accordance with section 
     2(b)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 
     as amended by subsection (a); and
       (B) the date on which the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice publishes a description of protocols and 
     practices in accordance with section 2(b)(1) of the DNA 
     Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as amended by 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Grant authority.--Notwithstanding the amendments made 
     by subsection (a)--
       (A) the Attorney General may make grants under section 2 of 
     the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     14135), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, until the transition date; and
       (B) the Attorney General may not make a grant under section 
     2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as 
     amended by subsection (a), until the transition date.

     SEC. 5. RAPE EXAM PAYMENTS.

       Section 2010 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``entity incurs the full'' and inserting 
     the following: ``entity--
       ``(A) incurs the full'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) coordinates with regional health care providers to 
     notify victims of sexual assault of the availability of rape 
     exams at no cost to the victims.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by adding ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Rule of 
     Construction.--'' and all that follows through the end of 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Noncooperation.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be in compliance with this section, a 
     State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government 
     shall comply with subsection (b) without regard to whether 
     the victim participates in the criminal justice system or 
     cooperates with law enforcement.''.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) DNA Research and Development.--Section 305(c) of the 
     Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136b(c)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.
       (b) FBI DNA Programs.--Section 307(a) of the Justice for 
     All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2275) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.
       (c) DNA Identification of Missing Persons.--Section 308(c) 
     of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136d(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.

     SEC. 7. PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

       Section 1001(a)(24) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 
     2016.''.

     SEC. 8. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION IN STATE 
                   CAPITAL CASES.

       Section 426 of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 
     14163e) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$75,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, or upon a showing of good cause, 
     and at the discretion of the Attorney General, the State may 
     determine a fair allocation of funds across the uses 
     described in sections 421 and 422.''.

     SEC. 9. POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 3600 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``death''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``and the applicant 
     did not--'' and all that follows through ``knowingly fail to 
     request'' and inserting ``and the applicant did not knowingly 
     fail to request''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``establish by compelling evidence'' and inserting 
     ``establish by a preponderance of the evidence''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``death''.
       (b) Preservation of Biological Evidence.--Section 3600A(c) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.

     SEC. 10. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CONSIDERATION 
                   OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 413 of the Justice for All Act of 
     2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136 note) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2016''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) provide a certification by the chief legal officer of 
     the State in which the eligible entity operates or the chief 
     legal officer of the jurisdiction in which the funds will be 
     used for the purposes of the grants, that the State or 
     jurisdiction--

[[Page S423]]

       ``(A) provides DNA testing of specified evidence under a 
     State statute to persons convicted after trial and under a 
     sentence of imprisonment or death for a State felony offense, 
     in a manner that ensures a reasonable process for resolving 
     claims of actual innocence consistent with section 3600(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code (which may include making post-
     conviction DNA testing available in cases in which the 
     testing would not be required under that section) and, if the 
     results of the testing exclude the applicant as the 
     perpetrator of the offense, permits the applicant to apply 
     for post-conviction relief, notwithstanding any provision of 
     law that would otherwise bar the application as untimely; and
       ``(B) preserves biological evidence under a State statute 
     or a State or local rule, regulation, or practice in a manner 
     intended to ensure that reasonable measures are taken by the 
     State or jurisdiction to preserve biological evidence secured 
     in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a State 
     felony offense (including, at a minimum murder, non-negligent 
     manslaughter and sexual offenses) in a manner consistent with 
     section 3600A of title 18, United States (which may require 
     preservation of biological evidence for longer than the 
     period of time that the evidence would be required to be 
     preserved under that section).''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 412(b) of the 
     Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136e(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2012 through 2016''; and
       (2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$10,000,000''.

     SEC. 11. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED BY 
                   NIJ.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the Justice for 
     All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2278) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 414. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED 
                   BY NIJ.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice shall--
       ``(1) establish best practices for evidence retention; and
       ``(2) assist State, local, and tribal governments in 
     adopting and implementing the best practices established 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice shall publish the best practices 
     established under subsection (a)(1).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents in section 1(b) of the Justice for All Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2260) is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 413 the following:

``Sec. 414. Establishment of national standards promulgated by NIJ.''.

     SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Effective Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2011''.
       (b) Strategic Planning.--Section 502 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3752) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``To request 
     a grant''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) A comprehensive State-wide plan detailing how grants 
     received under this section will be used to improve the 
     administration of the criminal justice system, which shall--
       ``(A) be designed in consultation with local governments, 
     and all segments of the criminal justice system, including 
     judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, corrections 
     personnel, and providers of indigent defense services, victim 
     services, juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs, 
     community corrections, and reentry services;
       ``(B) include a description of how the State will allocate 
     funding within and among each of the uses described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
       ``(C) describe the process used by the State for gathering 
     evidence-based data and developing and using evidence-based 
     and evidence-gathering approaches in support of funding 
     decisions; and
       ``(D) be updated every 5 years, with annual progress 
     reports that--
       ``(i) address changing circumstances in the State, if any;
       ``(ii) describe how the State plans to adjust funding 
     within and among each of the uses described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
       ``(iii) provide an ongoing assessment of need;
       ``(iv) discuss the accomplishment of goals identified in 
     any plan previously prepared under this paragraph; and
       ``(v) reflect how the plan influenced funding decisions in 
     the previous year.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) Strategic planning.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General 
     shall begin to provide technical assistance to States and 
     local governments requesting support to develop and implement 
     the strategic plan required under subsection (a)(6).
       ``(2) Protection of constitutional rights.--Not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     Attorney General shall begin to provide technical assistance 
     to States and local governments, including any agent thereof 
     with responsibility for administration of justice, requesting 
     support to meet the obligations established by the Sixth 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
     shall include--
       ``(A) public dissemination of practices, structures, or 
     models for the administration of justice consistent with the 
     requirements of the Sixth Amendment; and
       ``(B) assistance with adopting and implementing a system 
     for the administration of justice consistent with the 
     requirements of the Sixth Amendment.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2016 to carry out this subsection.''.
       (c) Protection of Constitutional Rights.--
       (1) Unlawful conduct.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person 
     acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a 
     pattern or practice of conduct by officials or employees of 
     any governmental agency with responsibility for the 
     administration of justice, including the administration of 
     programs or services that provide appointed counsel to 
     indigent defendants, that deprives persons of their rights to 
     assistance of counsel as protected under the Sixth Amendment 
     and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (2) Civil action by attorney general.--Whenever the 
     Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a 
     violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney 
     General, for or in the name of the United States, may, in a 
     civil action, obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory 
     relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Webb, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Thune, and Mr. Blunt):
  S. 253. A bill to establish a commission to ensure a suitable 
observance of the centennial of World War I, and to designate memorials 
to the service of men and women of the United States in World War I; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today--February 1--is the 110th 
birthday of Frank Buckles, the longest surviving veteran of World War 
I.
  It is also the day that I am proud to introduce a bipartisan bill to 
recognize the extraordinary efforts of 4 million men and women who 
served in World War I. I am joined by my colleagues Senators Webb, 
McCaskill, Thune and Blunt. We are united in our effort to prepare for 
the upcoming centennial of World War I. Our goal is to rededicate the 
DC memorial on the Mall as the District of Columbia and National World 
War I Memorial, and rededicate the Liberty Memorial of Kansas City as 
the National World War I Museum and Memorial. Our legislation also 
creates a commission to plan the national observance of the centennial.
  Having the appropriate tributes for our World War I veterans has been 
a cause for Frank Buckles. Over the years, he has become a 
representative of his generation of veterans. His personal story is 
similar to many young men of his era. As an eager 16-year-old, Frank 
Buckles tried to enlist in the Army several times and finally 
succeeded. He then pestered his officers to be sent to France. Mr. 
Buckles drove motorcycles, cars, and ambulances in England and France, 
and during the Occupation, he guarded German prisoners. Following the 
war, he went to work for the White Star steamship line. In December 
1941, while on business in Manila, the Japanese attacked the 
Philippines. Frank Buckles spent over 3 years as a prisoner at the 
city's Los Banos prison camp. On February 23, 1945, a unit from the 
11th Airborne Division freed him and 2,147 other prisoners in a daring 
raid on the Los Banos prison camp. Mr. Buckles was affected by and has 
memories of both World War I and World War II.
  I had the privilege of listening to Frank Buckles' compelling stories 
in his home in West Virginia while sitting with his daughter. He 
generously shares his memories of working to enlist and get to France, 
as well as meeting French soldiers and guarding German prisoners. 
Everyone can hear his reflections by visiting the Library of Congress's 
special Web site for its Veterans History Project. It has personal 
interviews of Mr. Buckles and thousands of other veterans that have 
served our Nation both during times of war and peace. Visiting this Web 
site is an incredible resource for scholars, students and every 
American, and it reminds us of the compelling personal stories of 
bravery, commitment, and

[[Page S424]]

sacrifice made by our country's veterans and how they shaped our world.
  Our bipartisan bill is designed to honor and remember over 4.35 
million Americans, like Frank Buckles, who answered the call of duty 
and served from 1914-1918 in World War I. What became known as the 
Great War claimed the lives of 126,000 Americans, wounded 234,300, and 
left 4,526 as prisoners of war or missing in action.
  At the end of World War I, numerous cities and States erected local 
and state memorials to honor their citizens who answered the call and 
proudly served the United States of America. On Armistice Day in 1931, 
President Hoover dedicated the DC World War I Memorial to honor the 499 
District of Columbia residents who gave their lives in the service of 
our country. Since then, national monuments to commemorate the 
sacrifice and heroism of those who served in World War II, the Korean 
War, and the Vietnam War have all been built on the National Mall. I 
believe that the DC Memorial should be rededicated in time for the 
centennial as well as the Kansas City Museum and Liberty Tower.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. 
        Udall of Colorado):
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not to exceed 20 per cent of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation 
that I have introduced in every Congress since 1987--a proposed 
constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance our Nation's 
budget. This bill has bipartisan support and will allow us to finally 
begin to get our fiscal house in order.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I believe, is the 
only certain mechanism that will break the cycle of deficit spending.
  I believe we must ensure that the government does not continue to 
saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's 
debts. Essentially, this amendment that I propose requires the United 
States not spend more money than it receives in revenue, except in 
times of war, or when suspended by a vote of three-fifths of both 
Houses of Congress.
  This bill that we propose will provide financial stability to our 
Nation. Bailouts, stimulus programs, government takeovers of private 
industry, and costly new programs have consumed and overwhelmed the 
Federal budget.
  Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the 
Federal Government has incurred massive debt--nearly $14 trillion and 
rising quickly.
  For a moment, let me share this chart with you. It says, ``The Case 
for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.'' If we go back to 
1980--just 30 years ago--we owed, as a nation, $909 billion--not yet a 
trillion dollars. That was after nearly 200 years of government, 
including the First World War debt, the Depression, the Second World 
War, the Korean war, and the Vietnamese war, and many deficits. But 
from 1980 to 1990, this jumped to $3 trillion. From 1990 to 2000--a 10-
year span--it jumped from $3 trillion to $5.6 trillion. That was pretty 
bad. But from the year 2000 to 2010, which ended a few weeks ago, it 
went from $5 trillion to $13 trillion--in 10 years. It is slated now, 
in the next 11 years, to go to $25 trillion. That is unsustainable.
  In fact, for the record, the United States has only had 2 years in 
its entire history where it has been debt free. Look back a while. It 
was 1834 and 1835. I repeat, only 2 years free from debt. It seems to 
me that the most powerful Nation in the world has had its weaknesses 
exposed. Foreign markets cannot stand on our wobbly financial legs. The 
reverberations of our fiscal ineptitude have not only cost American 
jobs, which we badly need, but have weakened how other nations perceive 
us. Something must be done.
  Unfortunately, we don't have to look back far in history to see an 
example of a once great empire sitting on the curb with its hand held 
out. Greece's excessive public spending, coupled with a massive 
borrowing campaign, has put its fiscal insolvency woes on the entire 
European Union. Greece's bond rating was downgraded to ``junk'' by 
Standard and Poor's in April. Bondholders were warned they could 
recover as little as 30 percent of their initial investment. The euro 
weakened and the European stock markets plunged. The question is, will 
the dollar soon be seen as ``junk'' to the rest of the world? I hope 
not.
  American taxpayers are rightly infuriated by the Federal Government's 
disregard for the same economic principles that govern every household 
and business budget. Unfortunately, until the Federal Government is 
required to spend only the amount of money it takes in, I fear we will 
continue to write checks the Treasury cannot cash.
  In fiscal year 2010, the total interest alone on the Treasury debt 
securities was $413 billion. I believe this money could be better spent 
on improving education, supporting our law enforcement or, even better, 
by returning it to the people who earned it, the taxpayers.
  We hear on a daily basis the rhetoric about tough choices, sacrifice, 
and austerity. What we need to hear more about is basic mathematics 
when we are talking about the budget. A balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution is the solution, I believe, to a perpetual problem 
that we do not have the political will to fix. It will finally put our 
Nation on a path to paying off our national debt. The adoption of an 
amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every 
American already has to do--balance its checkbook--is what this country 
needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this 
feat.
  A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American 
people that the government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars 
responsibly. Some opponents of a balanced budget amendment state that 
it is a drastic measure not necessary at this time. They are also 
correct that it is bold. But I believe it is also necessary.
  I have introduced this legislation, as I said, in every Congress 
since 1987. If not now, when?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to join my 
colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today 
that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
  The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common 
sense to most American families, who have to balance their own 
checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal 
Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has 
only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the 
Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice 
in our history.
  The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the 
Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies 
sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a 
tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are 
approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and 
our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. 
We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation.
  By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced 
budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, 
perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to 
the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we 
are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a 
signal I believe we need to send now.
  Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is 
a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced 
budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the 
Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this 
amendment is certainly no exception.
  I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. 
During the

[[Page S425]]

Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing 
need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, 
part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our 
Nation back on a financially sound path.
  Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise--
credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually 
hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is 
nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political 
statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government.
  The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan 
one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had 
a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous 
provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect 
favored tax breaks or certain spending.
  However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually 
progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of 
Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to 
passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we 
would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, 
rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually 
see family incomes rise.
  Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more 
extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation.
  Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 
trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't 
put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we 
can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford 
any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help 
propel the middle class and small business over the longer term.
  What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability 
to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of 
President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our 
debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a 
point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address 
last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to 
make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, 
and infrastructure, to name a few.
  He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working 
Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to 
second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around 
the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our 
innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at 
the American dream.
  I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on 
spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the 
extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal 
situation in which we find our Nation.
  I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the 
Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a 
line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste 
and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of 
bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the 
President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A 
balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need.
  Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, 
to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say 
that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues 
to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank 
him and acknowledge his leadership.
  The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement 
that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures 
of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross 
domestic product.
  As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when 
the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a 
supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the 
event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency.
  To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our 
economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It 
allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional 
circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in 
situations that can't be predicted or planned for.
  All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a 
responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget.
  We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union 
Address about the need to work together to address our biggest 
challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my 
money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope 
our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us 
address our most pressing national issues. The American people are 
demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is 
time for us to catch up.
  I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with 
Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing 
is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest 
and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves 
out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

                          ____________________