[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4158-S4161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Mr. Coons, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1283. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
permit leave to care for a same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-
in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent who has a 
serious health condition; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and 
Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This bill, which I also introduced in the 
111th Congress, would extend the important protections of the Family 
and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples in America.
  I am pleased to introduce this bill with a coalition of Senators who 
are committed to ensuring justice and equality for all Americans. I 
would like to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Coons, Gillibrand, 
Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Merkley, Sanders, and Whitehouse for standing 
with me in support of the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act.
  In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among 
other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health 
crisis, or that of a close family member.
  People in the workforce who suffer a serious illness or significant 
injury should be able to take time to heal, recover, follow their 
doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong, healthy, and ready to 
be productive again. Thanks to the FMLA, they can take that time 
knowing that their jobs will be there when they recover.
  As we all know well, most employees are not only concerned about 
their own health and wellbeing. They are concerned about the health and 
wellbeing of those that they love. The FMLA gave workers with a child, 
parent, or spouse that was sick or injured, an opportunity to provide 
the needed care and support, knowing that their jobs would be there 
when they returned.
  When it was passed, the FMLA was an important and historic expansion 
of our nation's laws. Unfortunately, as families have evolved and 
expanded, we've learned that the FMLA does not provide the same level 
of protection to all American families. Under current law, it is 
impossible for many employees to be with their partners during times of 
medical need.
  As I stated when I introduced this bill last year, Congress followed 
the lead of many large and small businesses when it enacted the FMLA. 
Almost 20 years ago, many of these businesses had already recognized 
and addressed the need for employees to take time off to care for 
themselves or a loved one that was battling a serious health condition. 
These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time 
to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those 
employees would return to work as soon as they could.
  The FMLA took the model these companies provided and brought the 
majority of the American workforce under the same protections.
  We once again have an opportunity to learn from the best practices of 
American businesses who have adjusted their personnel policies and 
benefit packages to better meet the needs of American families, as we 
find them today. These businesses have assessed the composition of 
their workforces and realized that, in order to meet the evolving needs 
of their employees and enhance productivity, they needed to go one step 
further than the protections provided by the FMLA.
  The Human Rights Campaign, leading civil rights organization that 
strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, reports 
that 502 major American corporations, 10 states, and the District of 
Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on behalf of a same-
sex partner. Moreover, as of March of this year, 58 percent of Fortune 
500 companies provided health benefits to same-sex partners, a 13 fold 
increase since 1995.
  When the FMLA was signed into law, it was narrowly tailored to cover 
individuals caring for a very close family member. The law sought to 
cover that inner circle of people, where the family member assuming the 
caretaker role would be one of very few, if not the only person, who 
could do so. That idea has not changed.
  What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle. 
The nuclear American family has grown, sometimes by design, and 
sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close 
family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex 
domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.
  As the law stands right now, too many of these people are excluded 
from the protections of the FMLA.
  In these tough economic times, when unemployment is high and those 
with jobs are doing everything they can to keep them, we all know the 
value of job security. Hardworking Americans should not have to make 
the impossible choice between keeping their jobs and providing care and 
support for loved ones in their time of need. Almost 20 years ago, the 
FMLA ensured that millions of Americans did not have to make that 
choice. Now, the time has come to ensure that the security afforded by 
the FMLA is available to a broader range of American workers.
  There are many who would understandably question what this kind of 
change in the law would cost the business community. As I have stated 
in the past, the FMLA is already a very good law; it is already in 
place and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises, 
and it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to 
handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.
  Ninety percent of the leave time that has been taken under the FMLA 
has been so that employees can care for themselves or for a child in 
their care, and those situations are already covered under the law as 
it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would do is 
provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that there are a few 
more people in that inner circle of family who we might call upon, or 
who might call upon us.
  We can all agree that family is the first and best safety net in 
times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic 
ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave 
Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help 
their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing 
their jobs in the process.
  The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act enhances the FMLA. The 
Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, like the FMLA when it was 
passed almost 20 years ago, is long overdue. Our bill contains 
reasonable changes that reflect what many businesses have already done 
and accurately capture the modem American family.
  The Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act is supported by over 80 
organizations from the business, civil rights, LGBT, and labor 
communities, including: the National Association of Working Women; 
AFSCME; American Pediatrics Association; ACLU; Families USA; Gay and 
Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLAD; Human Rights Campaign; People 
for the American Way;

[[Page S4159]]

SEIU; and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
  The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act is the right thing to do, 
and I hope we can join together and pass it on a bipartisan basis.
  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. 1283

       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 ``Family and Medical Leave 
     Inclusion Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEAVE TO CARE FOR A SAME-SEX SPOUSE, DOMESTIC 
                   PARTNER, PARENT-IN-LAW, ADULT CHILD, SIBLING, 
                   GRANDCHILD, OR GRANDPARENT.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic 
     partner.--Section 101(12) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(12)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic 
     partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
       (B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
       (2) Inclusion of grandchildren, grandparents, parents-in-
     law, siblings, and domestic partners.--Section 101 of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 2611) is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(20) Domestic partner.--The term `domestic partner', used 
     with respect to an employee, means--
       ``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the 
     employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union 
     law of the State or political subdivision of a State where 
     the employee resides, or the person who is lawfully married 
     to the employee under the law of the State where the employee 
     resides and who is the same sex as the employee; or
       ``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a 
     State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex 
     under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person 
     of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed, 
     personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary) 
     relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner 
     to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by 
     such employee as that employee's domestic partner.
       ``(21) Grandchild.--The term `grandchild', used with 
     respect to an employee, means any person who is a son or 
     daughter of a son or daughter of the employee.
       ``(22) Grandparent.--The term `grandparent', used with 
     respect to an employee, means a parent of a parent of the 
     employee.
       ``(23) Parent-in-law.--The term `parent-in-law', used with 
     respect to an employee, means a parent of the spouse or 
     domestic partner of the employee.
       ``(24) Sibling.--The term `sibling', used with respect to 
     an employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the 
     employee's parent.
       ``(25) Son-in-law or daughter-in-law.--The term `son-in-law 
     or daughter-in-law', used with respect to an employee, means 
     any person who is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or 
     daughter of the employee.''.
       (b) Leave Requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling, of the employee if such spouse, 
     domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandchild, or sibling,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son, 
     daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
     law, grandparent, sibling,'';
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent,'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandchild, grandparent, sibling,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandchild, or sibling,''; and
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a husband and wife'' 
     and inserting ``2 spouses or 2 domestic partners''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``that husband and 
     wife'' and inserting ``those spouses or those domestic 
     partners''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the husband and 
     wife'' and inserting ``those spouses or those domestic 
     partners''.
       (c) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or parent 
     and an estimate of the amount of time that such employee is 
     needed to care for the son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the amount of time 
     that such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, 
     spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, 
     or sibling''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``parent, or spouse'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''.
       (d) Employment and Benefits Protection.--Section 104(c)(3) 
     of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2614(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, 
     parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, 
     parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic 
     partner.--Section 6381(6) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic 
     partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
       (B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
       (2) Inclusion of grandchildren, grandparents, parents-in-
     law, siblings, and domestic partners.--Section 6381 of such 
     title is further amended--
       (A) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) the term `domestic partner', used with respect to an 
     employee, means--
       ``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the 
     employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union 
     law of the State or political subdivision of a State where 
     the employee resides, or the person who is lawfully married 
     to the employee under the law of the State where the employee 
     resides and who is the same sex as the employee; or
       ``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a 
     State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex 
     under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person 
     of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed, 
     personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Office of 
     Personnel Management) relationship with the employee, who is 
     not a domestic partner to any other person, and who is 
     designated to the employer by such employee as that 
     employee's domestic partner;
       ``(14) the term `grandchild', used with respect to an 
     employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of a son 
     or daughter of the employee;
       ``(15) the term `grandparent', used with respect to an 
     employee, means a parent of a parent of the employee;
       ``(16) the term `parent-in-law', used with respect to an 
     employee, means a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of 
     the employee;
       ``(17) the term `sibling', used with respect to an 
     employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the 
     employee's parent; and
       ``(18) the term `son-in-law or daughter-in-law', used with 
     respect to an employee, means any person who is a spouse or 
     domestic partner of a son or daughter of the employee.''.
       (b) Leave Requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling, of the employee, if such spouse, 
     domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandchild, or sibling,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son, 
     daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
     law, grandparent, sibling,''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandchild, grandparent, sibling''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandchild, or sibling,''.
       (c) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent, and an estimate of the

[[Page S4160]]

     amount of time that such employee is needed to care for such 
     son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse, 
     domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or 
     sibling and an estimate of the amount of time that such 
     employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse, 
     domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or 
     sibling''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1284. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 
require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
consider reconstruction and improvement of flood protection systems 
when establishing flood insurance rates; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood 
Protection Fairness Act of 2011.
  This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National 
Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes 
local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.
  The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for 
the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on 
Federal tax dollars to build their levees.
  The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to 
calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of 
using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. 
This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.
  The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the 
same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, 
provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.
  The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be 
incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back 
yards.
  In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the 
federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal 
investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. 
Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.
  In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their 
local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal 
Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood 
insurance bill.
  These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at 
greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid 
to build their levee. That is not sound policy.
  Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.
  A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the 
area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will 
be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of 
insurance.
  However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the 
Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the 
State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by 
Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the 
middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood 
insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.
  That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless 
of your economic situation.
  I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to 
undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit 
development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain 
is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new 
construction in hazardous areas.
  But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being 
counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the 
NFIP are antiquated.
  To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a 
little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map 
Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for 
safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do 
not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that 
the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, 
and until recently, were unaware of it.
  Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this 
information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are 
able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local 
governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the 
locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give 
homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were 
built by the Federal Government.
  The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for 
reduced rate flood insurance zones.
  FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced 
flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee 
system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by 
federally funded levees.
  Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property 
assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are 
still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not 
being paid for by the Federal Government.
  The original idea behind this requirement was that information on 
non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they 
really were.
  That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better 
science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee 
safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.
  Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a 
change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control 
Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are 
seeking this change.
  At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office 
of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense 
modifications.
  I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope 
to see these changes enacted quickly.
  There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. 
Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus 
included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood 
Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for 
agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her 
effective advocacy on this issue.
  On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map 
Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. 
As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means 
and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not 
trivial accomplishments.
  But a little fine tuning is in order.
  Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should 
not be penalized for paying for it themselves.
  Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the 
same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.
  The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important 
principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.
  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. 1284

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

     SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
                   FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN DETERMINATION OF 
                   FLOOD INSURANCE RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a 
     flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system 
     (without respect to the level of Federal investment or 
     participation)''; and

[[Page S4161]]

       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``construction of a flood protection 
     system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or 
     improvement of a flood protection system''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``based on the present value of the 
     completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal 
     investment or participation)'' after ``no longer does'';
       (B) in the third sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or riverine,'' after 
     ``special flood hazard''; and
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in 
     consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or 
     repair such system''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     carry out the amendments made by subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. 
        Blunt):
  S.J. Res. 22. A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to 
an amendment to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois 
providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may 
mature in not to exceed 40 years; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 22

       Whereas to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to 
     the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois 
     providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development 
     Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years;
       Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between 
     Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development 
     Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided that 
     no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency until such 
     power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency by the 
     legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an 
     Act of Congress;
       Whereas such States previously enacted legislation 
     providing that the Bi-State Agency had the power to issue 
     notes, bonds, or other instruments in writing provided they 
     shall mature in not to exceed 30 years, and Congress 
     consented to such power; and
       Whereas such States have now enacted legislation amending 
     this power: Now therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONSENT.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the 
     amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State Development 
     Agency by Senate Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 2010 and Public 
     Act 96-1520 (Senate Bill 3342), Laws of Illinois 2010.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment to the powers conferred 
     by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on December 17, 2010.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950.

       The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
     shall apply to the amendment approved under this joint 
     resolution to the same extent as if such amendment was 
     conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in 
     such Act.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
     is expressly reserved.

     SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.

       The right is reserved to Congress to require the disclosure 
     and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State 
     Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by Congress.

                          ____________________