[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 110 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4803-S4807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr.
Grassley):
S. 1395. A bill to ensure that all Americans have access to waivers
from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have just
about every week since the health care law has been passed, with a
doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I have great
concerns about the law that was forced through this Senate.
I come to the floor because it seems that the more Americans find out
and learn about this health care law, the less they like it. A majority
of Americans now in national polls say they want out. They absolutely
want out.
Since October of 2010, the administration has granted waivers--
waivers--to unions, businesses, insurers, and actually to whole States
because they cannot afford the health care law's burdensome mandates.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services continues to release more
waivers and did so again last Friday. They have now granted a total of
1,471 annual benefit limit waivers, and this has covered 3.2 million
Americans.
That is why I come to the floor to introduce a bill that will allow
every American--every American--to apply for a waiver from the
President's health care law.
Under my bill, any American can submit a waiver application seeking
relief from any or all of the health care law's mandates. All those
Americans will have to do is simply show what unions and corporations
have shown in order to get their waivers--nothing more, nothing less.
Waivers will be granted to individuals who show that the health care
law is either increasing their insurance premiums or decreasing their
access to benefits. That is all they have to show.
So far, this administration has ignored most Americans demand for a
way out of the health care law, and Americans are looking for a way out
of it. Instead, this administration has granted half the waivers--half
the waivers--to people who get their health coverage through unions.
Although those people represent a very small percentage of the workers
in America, they got half of all the waivers. It is neither fair nor is
it reasonable.
[[Page S4804]]
These are the same unions--the same unions--that lobbied for and
supported the health care law. But now that they have actually read it
and found out what is in it, even though it has been passed--too late
now; we thought too late--but they have been getting waivers so they do
not have to live under the mandates of the health care law.
We are talking about unions such as the Service Employees
International Union. This is what they said about the health care law.
These are people who lobbied for the health care law. Now they have
found out what is in it, and they say to live under it would be
financially impossible. A union that lobbied for the health care law
now says it would be financially impossible to live under it.
It does not just apply to that union; it applies to Americans all
across this great land. So I do not think any Americans should have to
bear financially impossible costs because of the law.
The financially impossible mandates and elements of this bill have
absolutely become more obvious to more Americans as they have taken the
time to look at the rules and the regulations. That is why, frankly,
this steady drip of waivers coming out of Health and Human Services--
giving waivers to many of their friends--has become such an
embarrassment for this administration and why they actually recently
abruptly changed the rules.
In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced
that all employees and organizations that cannot afford the law's
crushing mandates--and there are many--must jump through a new set of
hoops. It used to be that they would get a 1-year waiver. Now all
employers and organizations, even those that have already gotten a
waiver, must apply for long-term waivers by September of this year. The
long-term waivers will last all the way until 2014.
Instead of ending the waiver process, the administration should
extend the waiver process to include all Americans. That is what my
bill does. If not, families, companies, and organizations of all sizes
will soon be hit with these crushing mandates.
Under the administration's current plan, employers will be forced to
provide $750,000 worth of coverage to every employee this year. By next
September, that number balloons to $2 million. Beyond that, there is no
limit--it continues to go higher and higher. So if you are an employer
and you cannot afford $2 million in coverage next year, well, you
better apply for your waiver now, that long-term waiver, before
September of this year; otherwise, you are going to be stuck with costs
that only get higher and higher. This, to me, is what the
administration wants to do because they do not want to put out waivers
in 2012, an election year, which is going to cause additional attention
to how unpopular this health care law continues to be.
Let's talk about some Americans who get together--people in any
community, in my State, in your State, Mr. President--and want to start
a new business. They are thinking about starting a new business after
September, thinking about, Do we do it this summer? Do we wait until
the fall? If these people want to start a new business and hire people
and they want to start that business after September, they are going to
be faced with two difficult choices: They can offer high-cost,
government-approved health insurance--that is what the health care law
says--making it very expensive for them to try to open a new business,
to try to hire workers, to put America back to work--we are at a time
when there is 9.2 percent unemployment in this country--or these people
trying to start a new business can refuse to offer coverage at all
because they can't afford the health care law's sky-high mandates.
So the incentives in the health care law will encourage businesses to
do what? Well, to drop insurance coverage if they are providing it
right now. Under the law, businesses are permitted to drop out of
paying for employer-provided coverage as long as they pay a fine. The
fine is going to be $2,000 per employee. The fine is far smaller than
the exploding costs imposed by the health care law. So I think this
explains why McKinsey & Company recently reported that up to 50 percent
of employers are expected to stop offering employer-provided health
care coverage.
The employees who are dumped--what happens to them? Well, they will
be forced to get their insurance through a government exchange, an
exchange run by Washington, which is heavily subsidized by the American
taxpayers. They are going to be dumped into the exchange. The annual
cost of subsidizing these ballooning numbers of insurance policies, by
my calculation, is about $900 billion. Well, that is nine times higher
than what the White House has claimed. In short, the taxpayers of this
country will be stuck with a bill of nearly $1 trillion every year.
Well, I am going to continue to come to the floor week after week,
continue to fight to repeal and replace this health care law with
patient-centered care--patient-centered care--that lowers costs for all
Americans and improves their care. So I will continue with the second
opinions because until we are able to repeal and replace the health
care law, I am going to move forward with what is now the Waive Act.
This bill offers all Americans the freedom to choose--the freedom that
has been taken away from them by the President's health care law. It
gives them the right to seek and be granted a waiver out of the
President's health care law. It is time to transfer power from
Washington back to the American people. This will ensure they can get
the care they need from the doctor they want at a price they can
afford.
______
By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 1399. A bill to protect children affected by immigration
enforcement actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FRANKEN. 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. 1399
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 ``Humane Enforcement and Legal
Protections for Separated Children Act'' or the ``HELP
Separated Children Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Apprehension.--The term ``apprehension'' means the
detention, arrest, or custody by officials of the Department
or cooperating entities.
(2) Child.--Except as otherwise specifically provided, the
term ``child'' has the meaning given to the term in section
101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(b)(1)).
(3) Child welfare agency.--The term ``child welfare
agency'' means the State or local agency responsible for
child welfare services under subtitles B and E of title IV of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
(4) Cooperating entity.--The term ``cooperating entity''
means a State or local entity acting under agreement with the
Secretary.
(5) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(6) Detention facility.--The term ``detention facility''
means a Federal, State, or local government facility, or a
privately owned and operated facility, that is used to hold
individuals suspected or found to be in violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(7) Immigration enforcement action.--The term ``immigration
enforcement action'' means the apprehension of, detention of,
or request for or issuance of a detainer for, 1 or more
individuals for suspected or confirmed violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) by
the Secretary or a cooperating entity.
(8) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given to the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(9) NGO.--The term ``NGO'' means a nongovernmental
organization that provides social services or humanitarian
assistance to the immigrant community.
(10) Secretary.--Except as otherwise specifically provided,
the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Department.
SEC. 3. APPREHENSION PROCEDURES FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT-
RELATED ACTIVITIES.
(a) Notification.--
(1) Advance notification.--Subject to paragraph (2), when
conducting any immigration enforcement action, the Secretary
and cooperating entities shall notify the Governor of the
State, the local child welfare agency, and relevant State and
local law enforcement before commencing the action, or, if
advance notification is not possible, immediately after
commencing such action, of--
[[Page S4805]]
(A) the approximate number of individuals to be targeted in
the immigration enforcement action; and
(B) the primary language or languages believed to be spoken
by individuals at the targeted site.
(2) Hours of notification.--To the extent possible, the
advance notification required by paragraph (1) should occur
during business hours and allow the notified entities
sufficient time to identify resources to conduct the
interviews described in subsection (b)(1).
(3) Other notification.--When conducting any immigration
action, the Secretary and cooperating entities shall notify
the relevant local educational agency and local NGOs of the
information described in paragraph (1) immediately after
commencing the action.
(b) Apprehension Procedures.--In any immigration
enforcement action, the Secretary and cooperating entities
shall--
(1) as soon as possible and not later than 6 hours after an
immigration enforcement action, provide licensed social
workers or case managers employed or contracted by the child
welfare agency or local NGOs with confidential access to
screen and interview individuals apprehended in such
immigration enforcement action to assist the Secretary or
cooperating entity in determining if such individuals are
parents, legal guardians, or primary caregivers of a child in
the United States;
(2) as soon as possible and not later than 8 hours after an
immigration enforcement action, provide any apprehended
individual believed to be a parent, legal guardian, or
primary caregiver of a child in the United States with--
(A) free, confidential telephone calls, including calls to
child welfare agencies, attorneys, and legal services
providers, to arrange for the care of children or wards,
unless the Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that
providing confidential phone calls to the individual would
endanger public safety or national security; and
(B) contact information for--
(i) child welfare agencies in all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, all United States territories, counties, and
local jurisdictions; and
(ii) attorneys and legal service providers capable of
providing free legal advice or free legal representation
regarding child welfare, child custody determinations, and
immigration matters;
(3) ensure that personnel of the Department and cooperating
entities do not--
(A) interview individuals in the immediate presence of
children; or
(B) compel or request children to translate for interviews
of other individuals who are encountered as part of an
immigration enforcement action; and
(4) ensure that any parent, legal guardian, or primary
caregiver of a child in the United States--
(A) receives due consideration of the best interests of his
or her children or wards in any decision or action relating
to his or her detention, release, or transfer between
detention facilities; and
(B) is not transferred from his or her initial detention
facility or to the custody of the Secretary until the
individual--
(i) has made arrangements for the care of his or her
children or wards; or
(ii) if such arrangements are impossible, is informed of
the care arrangements made for the children and of a means to
maintain communication with the children.
(c) Nondisclosure and Retention of Information About
Apprehended Individuals and Their Children.--
(1) In general.--Information collected by child welfare
agencies and NGOs in the course of the screenings and
interviews described in subsection (b)(1) may not be
disclosed to Federal, State, or local government entities or
to any person, except pursuant to written authorization from
the individual or his or her legal counsel.
(2) Child welfare agency or ngo recommendation.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a child welfare agency or NGO
may--
(A) submit a recommendation to the Secretary or a
cooperating entity regarding whether an apprehended
individual is a parent, legal guardian, or primary caregiver
who is eligible for the protections provided under this Act;
and
(B) disclose information that is necessary to protect the
safety of the child, to allow for the application of
subsection (b)(4)(A), or to prevent reasonably certain death
or substantial bodily harm.
SEC. 4. ACCESS TO CHILDREN, LOCAL AND STATE COURTS, CHILD
WELFARE AGENCIES, AND CONSULAR OFFICIALS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
detention facilities operated by or under agreement with the
Department implement procedures to ensure that the best
interest of the child, including a preference for family
unity wherever appropriate, is considered in any decision and
action relating to the custody of children whose parent,
legal guardian, or primary caregiver is detained as the
result of an immigration enforcement action.
(b) Access to Children, State and Local Courts, Child
Welfare Agencies, and Consular Officials.--At all detention
facilities operated by, or under agreement with, the
Department, the Secretary shall--
(1) prominently post in a manner accessible to detainees
and visitors and include in detainee handbooks information on
the protections of this Act as well as information on
potential eligibility for parole or release;
(2) ensure that individuals who are detained by reason of
their immigration status may receive the screenings and
interviews described in section 3(b)(1) not later than 6
hours after their arrival at the detention facility;
(3) ensure that individuals who are detained by reason of
their immigration status and are believed to be parents,
legal guardians, or primary caregivers of children in the
United States are--
(A) permitted daily phone calls and regular contact visits
with their children or wards;
(B) able to participate fully, and to the extent possible
in-person, in all family court proceedings and any other
proceeding impacting upon custody of their children or wards;
(C) able to fully comply with all family court or child
welfare agency orders impacting upon custody of their
children or wards;
(D) provided with contact information for family courts in
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, all United States
territories, counties, and local jurisdictions;
(E) granted free and confidential telephone calls to child
welfare agencies and family courts as often as is necessary
to ensure that the best interest of the child, including a
preference for family unity whenever appropriate, can be
considered;
(F) granted free and confidential telephone calls and
confidential in-person visits with attorneys, legal
representatives, and consular officials;
(G) provided United States passport applications for the
purpose of obtaining travel documents for their children or
wards;
(H) granted adequate time before removal to obtain
passports and other necessary travel documents on behalf of
their children or wards if such children or wards will
accompany them on their return to their country of origin or
join them in their country of origin; and
(I) provided with the access necessary to obtain birth
records or other documents required to obtain passports for
their children or wards; and
(4) facilitate the ability of detained parents, legal
guardians, and primary caregivers to share information
regarding travel arrangements with their children or wards,
child welfare agencies, or other caregivers well in advance
of the detained individual's departure from the United
States.
SEC. 5. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING.
The Secretary shall develop and implement memoranda of
understanding or protocols with child welfare agencies and
NGOs regarding the best ways to cooperate and facilitate
ongoing communication between all relevant entities in cases
involving a child whose parent, legal guardian, or primary
caregiver has been apprehended or detained in an immigration
enforcement action to protect the best interests of the
child, including a preference for family unity whenever
appropriate.
SEC. 6. MANDATORY TRAINING.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and independent child welfare experts,
shall require and provide in-person training on the
protections required under sections 3 and 4 to all personnel
of the Department and of States and local entities acting
under agreement with the Department who regularly come into
contact with children or parents in the course of conducting
immigration enforcement actions.
SEC. 7. RULEMAKING.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
implement this Act.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act,
or the application of a provision or amendment to any person
or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions and amendment to any person
or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
SEC. 9. REPORT ON PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN IMPACTED BY
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
(a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
that describes the impact of immigration enforcement
activities on children, including children who are citizens
of the United States.
(b) Content.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall include for the previous 1-year period an assessment
of--
(1) the number of individuals removed from the United
States who are the parent of a child who is a citizen of the
United States;
(2) the number of occasions in which both parents or the
primary caretaker of such a child was removed from the United
States;
(3) the number of children who are citizens of the United
States who leave the United States with parents who are
removed;
(4) the number of such children who remained in the United
States after the removal of a parent;
(5) the age of each such child at the time a parent is
removed; and
(6) the number of instances in which such a child whose
parent is apprehended, detained, or removed is referred to
the local child welfare agency by officers or employees of
the Department.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr.
[[Page S4806]]
Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Franken, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Johnson
of South Dakota, and Mr. Begich):
S. 1403. A bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act to provide full Federal funding of such part; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I
have focused on ensuring that each and every child with a disability
has a right to a good education. To this end, I have fought tirelessly
to safeguard the rights of children with disabilities under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the landmark
legislation that has been improving the educational outcomes of
millions of students across the nation since 1975 through the
principles of inclusion and equality. When Congress passed IDEA with
strong bipartisan support, we understood that our commitment to provide
high-quality educational opportunities and serve the needs of students
with disabilities in our classrooms entailed excess costs compared to
other students, which would have a significant financial impact on
States and school districts. As a result, Congress committed to cover
up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with
disabilities; however, we have failed to deliver on that promise and
the law has been greatly underfunded. This is why I am pleased to
introduce the IDEA Full Funding Act, with my colleagues Richard Durbin,
Frank Lautenberg, Richard Blumenthal, Patty Murray, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Patrick Leahy, Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Barbara Mikulski, Jack Reed,
Jeanne Shaheen, Tim Johnson, and Mark Begich, which will meet the full
Federal commitment at no additional cost to taxpayers. Given the
current financial difficulties that many State and local governments
are facing, this legislation is more essential than ever for ensuring
that students with disabilities get the high-quality education and
services they need to fulfill their potential.
Since the enactment of IDEA, students with disabilities across the
United States have made tremendous progress. Today, over 6.6 million
students receive special education services designed to meet their
individual needs. Mr. President, 95 percent of students with
disabilities attend a neighborhood school, and almost \2/3\ of those
spend at least 80 percent of their day in the regular school
environment. Nearly 350,000 infants and toddlers receive early
intervention services. Almost 6 out of 10 students with disabilities
graduate high school with a regular diploma--twice the percentage of 25
years ago. Moreover, approximately half of students with disabilities
enroll in postsecondary education. We must do our best to continue this
progress and make good on a 36-year-old promise because we still have a
long way to go: students with disabilities who graduate from high
school have an employment rate that is less than half the employment
rate of the general population.
Today, the Federal Government provides about 16 percent of special
education costs or less than half of the committed level of 40 percent.
In the current fiscal year, this means that Federal funds are almost
$24 billion short, which forces States and school districts to make up
the Federal shortfall at a time when they are cash strapped. The IDEA
Full Funding Act will fully fund the Federal commitment to IDEA by
gradually increasing the Federal Government's share of the excess costs
of educating students with disabilities to its committed level over 10
years. Specifically, this legislation will increase the Federal dollars
appropriated from $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $35.3 billion in
fiscal year 2021.
By making good on our 36-year-old promise, which has a history of
bipartisan support, we will supply schools with the necessary funding
to enhance the quality and range of services available to students with
disabilities. The funding increase will help to raise salaries for
teachers and related services personnel, thereby allowing districts to
enhance recruitment and retention possibilities, and will support
school districts in increasing graduation rates and postsecondary
enrollment rates of students with disabilities.
In these difficult times, it is essential for Congress to provide
these revenues without increasing the deficit. The IDEA Full Funding
Act is fully paid for by doubling the tax on cigarettes and small
cigars and setting equivalent increases to other tobacco products. In
addition to the benefit of offsetting the cost of fully funding IDEA,
these tax provisions will help an estimated 1 million Americans reduce
their tobacco use or quit altogether and prevent an estimated 2.2
million children from taking up smoking in the first place. The stakes
are incredibly high: smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car
accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined, with
thousands more dying from spit tobacco use. Every day at least 1,000
children become new regular, daily smokers in the U.S. and of those,
almost a third will ultimately die from it. Furthermore, every year
Americans incur the cost of $96 billion in public and private health
care expenditures caused by smoking, including an estimated $54.6
billion in Federal Medicare and Medicaid Federal expenditures. Overall,
this legislation, which I hope will enjoy bipartisan support, will
impact children's lives in important ways, both by improving the
educational outcomes of students with disabilities and by improving
their health through smoking prevention.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1404. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
increase participation in medical flexible spending arrangements; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical FSA
Improvement Act of 2011. I am joined in this effort by Senator Enzi and
I thank him for his support. Our bill would allow employees who have
medical FSAs to cash out unused amounts, effectively repealing the
current ``use-it-or-lose-it'' policy.
Our legislation would modernize and encourage participation in FSAs,
which are a helpful tool for health care consumers who face significant
cost sharing burdens. It would remove the penalty on employees who act
prudently throughout the year and save their FSA dollars.
Flexible spending arrangements are an important benefit for many of
my constituents in Maryland, Federal, State, and private sector
employees, that allows them to set aside a portion of their income tax-
free to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as co-payments for
doctor visits and prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment.
Nationwide, about 35 million Americans have FSAs, and the median
salary of FSA participants is $55,000. It is estimated that one-third
of Federal employees contribute to an FSA. Currently in Maryland, there
are over 50,000 Federal employees who benefit from FSAs. These plans
are efficient, the administrative costs are between two and three
percent of claims, far lower than other health insurance administrative
costs, and over 90 percent of claims can be substantiated
electronically, meaning that paperwork for participants is minimized.
More than 85 percent of America's large employers offer FSAs, but
only about 20 percent of eligible employees enroll. According to
several surveys of eligible participants, the primary reason for
declining to enroll or for underfunding accounts is concern about the
``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule, which requires participants to spend their
entire contribution before the end of the plan year or risk forfeiting
the unused funds back to their employer. This ``use-it-or-lose-it''
rule was initially enacted to prevent participants from putting
excessive amounts in their FSA, and it served to regulate what used to
be an uncapped benefit. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act
in 2010, annual contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500
beginning in 2013, which makes the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule
unnecessary.
It is unreasonable to expect FSA participants, especially those with
chronic conditions, to be able to accurately forecast their out-of-
pocket medical expenses a year in advance, and it is unfair to penalize
them at the end of the plan year if their estimates are incorrect by
making them forfeit any unspent amounts. Ending the ``use-it-
[[Page S4807]]
or-lose-it'' rule and allowing for this cash-out option is a wise and
sensible improvement to FSAs that will encourage more efficient
participation in medical flexible spending accounts.
It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ``use-it-
or-lose-it'' rule. It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA
participants to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year
rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer. The amounts
cashed out would be taxable for the year of the cash-out. Moreover,
just as it is at the discretion of employers to establish FSAs for
their employees, it would be the employer's option to offer the cash-
out feature. But I believe many employers will offer this option, as
they too will save money through increased employer payroll tax
savings.
Data provided by WageWorks shows that the average unused balance in
the end of the year in an FSA is about $100, and each year a total of
nearly $400 million remains in FSA accounts. The static analysis,
before considering the effects of greater participation in FSAs, would
indicate that allowing a cash-out of these funds and taxing these
unused amounts would increase federal revenues by about $70 million a
year, holding everything else constant.
Our legislation is supported by the Employers' Council on Flexible
Compensation, representing more than 100 member companies, including
employers, accounting and consulting firms, third party administrators,
and actuarial companies. I am also pleased to announce the support of
the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than
150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies.
I commend Representatives Charles Boustany and John Larson for having
introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives,
and urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1405. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been
living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 17
years.
The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the
early 1990's in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration
against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own
government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several
years later learned that she had contracted HIV.
Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were
able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr.
Tape arrived in the U.S in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto
entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed
with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 13,
and Emmanuel, age 8.
Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated
themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They are
active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.
Mr. Tape is employed as a security guard and unfortunately, in 2002,
he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. While his doctor states that the
cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-long
surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.
In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a
certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care
Specialist at a nursing home in San Pablo, California. Ms. Toto
continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her
doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory
monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the
U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately
denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to
imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been
afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with
former President Laurent Gbagbo. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly
believes that his family will be targeted if they return to the Ivory
Coast.
One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to
remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have
on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United
States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that
if the family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will
be forced to enter the army.
This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United
States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they may face
persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would
be devastating to the family. I have received approximately 30 letters
from the church community in support of this family.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
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. 1405
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GUY PRIVAT TAPE AND
LOU NAZIE RAYMONDE TOTO.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto shall each
be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence upon filing an application for
issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Guy Privat Tape or Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto enters the United States before the filing
deadline specified in subsection (c), Guy Privat Tape or Lou
Nazie Raymonde Toto, as appropriate, shall be considered to
have entered and remained lawfully in the United States and
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Guy Privat Tape and
Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
____________________