[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S709-S716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Franken):
S. 290. A bill to reduce housing-related health hazards, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bipartisan bills
pertaining to healthy housing, the Healthy Housing Council Act and the
Title X Amendments Act. These bills seek to improve federal
coordination of healthy housing efforts and better integrate healthy
housing activities into the ongoing lead poisoning prevention work at
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The presence of housing-related health hazards is often overlooked or
is unable to be addressed, and yet these hazards are sometimes the
cause of a variety of preventable diseases and conditions like cancer,
lead poisoning, and asthma. While I have been working to address these
hazards throughout my tenure in Congress, I was pleased that the
Administration last week released its Strategy for Action to Advance
Healthy Housing, a multi-department and agency effort to develop
consensus-based criteria to address housing hazards that impact the
health and habitation of children and families.
This new Strategy for Action calls on Federal agencies to address
barriers and disincentives to the delivery of services to improve
housing conditions, particularly among low-income families with young
children; replicate successful local healthy housing programs on a
larger scale; and conduct more research into cost-effective advances in
healthy housing programming.
The Title X Amendments Act, S. 290, which I am introducing with
Senators Johanns, Franken, and Boxer, and has been in the drafting
stages for many months, responds to these calls for action. It would
provide HUD with the necessary authority to continue to carry out
healthy housing activities while protecting important ongoing lead
remediation efforts, allow grantees to improve the conditions in zero-
bedroom units, and streamline eligibility for assistance. These are
simple, yet necessary reforms designed to improve and expand cost-
effective services, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
see them enacted.
It is also vital that we continue the type of collaboration and
coordination among Federal departments and agencies, like HUD, HHS,
EPA, and CDC, that resulted in the Strategy for Action to Advance
Healthy Homes. Indeed, there are many programs fragmented across
multiple agencies that are responsible for addressing housing-related
health hazards like lead and radon, and we should strive to improve the
efficiency and efficacy of these efforts by ensuring that these
agencies continue to work together.
The Healthy Housing Council Act, S. 291, which Senator Johanns,
Franken, and Boxer have also cosponsored, would establish an
independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive
branch in order to improve coordination, bring existing efforts out of
their respective silos, and reduce duplication.
The bill calls for the council to convene periodic meetings with
experts in the public and private sectors to discuss ways to educate
individuals and families on how to recognize housing-related health
hazards and access the necessary services and preventive measures to
combat these hazards. The council would also be required to hold
biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to
unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance.
Our goal for these bills is to help reduce the more than 5.7 million
households living in conditions with moderate or severe health hazards,
23 million additional homes with lead-based paint hazards, 14,000
unintentional injury and fire deaths every year that result from
housing-related hazards, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths
every year. Indeed, these numbers contribute to increasing health care
costs for individuals and families, as well as for federal, state, and
local governments.
Promoting low-cost measures to eliminate subpar housing can make a
dramatic and meaningful difference in the lives of children and
families and help reduce health care costs. I urge our colleagues to
join in supporting these bipartisan bills.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 296. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting
permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner
as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize
immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting
American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples
the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed.
This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation,
and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong
champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last
Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an
original cosponsor today.
Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy.
President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see
that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he
outlined last month.
Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay
and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces
many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with
the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and
forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no
American should have to make. Families from Maine to California
experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the
unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws
and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have
heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult
decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able
to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole
spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they
will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak
of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a
visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The
Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as
well.
Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that
U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed
relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides.
As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex
marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both
the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian
service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent
with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week
the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the
same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our
past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are
progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to
decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law,
which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and
responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values.
[[Page S710]]
Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration
equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including
some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex
couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil
rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that
Senators who supported this important advancement in our military
policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our
immigration laws.
Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that
it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the
belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud,
but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will
have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships
than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under
this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These
are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison,
$250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the
foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national
couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18
years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another
adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human
relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by
such fears.
Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights
and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up
to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and
should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States
should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their
country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join
Senator Collins and me in this effort.
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. 296
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Uniting
American Families Act of 2013''.
(b) Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act.--Except
as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, if an
amendment or repeal is expressed as the amendment or repeal
of a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to that section or provision in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act;
table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions of permanent partner and permanent partnership.
Sec. 3. Worldwide level of immigration.
Sec. 4. Numerical limitations on individual foreign states.
Sec. 5. Allocation of immigrant visas.
Sec. 6. Procedure for granting immigrant status.
Sec. 7. Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency
situation refugees.
Sec. 8. Asylum.
Sec. 9. Adjustment of status of refugees.
Sec. 10. Inadmissible aliens.
Sec. 11. Nonimmigrant status for permanent partners awaiting the
availability of an immigrant visa.
Sec. 12. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
spouses, permanent partners, and sons and daughters.
Sec. 13. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and children.
Sec. 14. Deportable aliens.
Sec. 15. Removal proceedings.
Sec. 16. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status.
Sec. 17. Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person
admitted for permanent residence.
Sec. 18. Application of criminal penalties to for misrepresentation and
concealment of facts regarding permanent partnerships.
Sec. 19. Requirements as to residence, good moral character, attachment
to the principles of the Constitution.
Sec. 20. Naturalization for permanent partners of citizens.
Sec. 21. Application of family unity provisions to permanent partners
of certain LIFE Act beneficiaries.
Sec. 22. Application to Cuban Adjustment Act.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS OF PERMANENT PARTNER AND PERMANENT
PARTNERSHIP.
Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (15)(K)(ii), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(52) The term `permanent partner' means an individual 18
years of age or older who--
``(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another
individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals
intend a lifelong commitment;
``(B) is financially interdependent with that other
individual;
``(C) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership
with, any individual other than that other individual;
``(D) is unable to contract with that other individual a
marriage cognizable under this Act; and
``(E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood
relation of that other individual.
``(53) The term `permanent partnership' means the
relationship that exists between 2 permanent partners.''.
SEC. 3. WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION.
Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is
amended--
(1) by ``spouse'' each place it appears and inserting
``spouse or permanent partner'';
(2) by striking ``spouses'' and inserting ``spouse,
permanent partner,'';
(3) by inserting ``(or, in the case of a permanent
partnership, whose permanent partnership was not
terminated)'' after ``was not legally separated from the
citizen''; and
(4) by striking ``remarries.'' and inserting ``remarries or
enters a permanent partnership with another person.''.
SEC. 4. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES.
(a) Per Country Levels.--Section 202(a)(4) (8 U.S.C.
1152(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses'';
(2) in the heading of subparagraph (A), by inserting ``,
permanent partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
(3) in the heading of subparagraph (C), by striking ``and
daughters'' inserting ``without permanent partners and
unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
(b) Rules for Chargeability.--Section 202(b)(2) (8 U.S.C.
1152(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``his spouse'' and inserting ``his or her
spouse or permanent partner'';
(2) by striking ``such spouse'' each place it appears and
inserting ``such spouse or permanent partner''; and
(3) by inserting ``or permanent partners'' after ``husband
and wife''.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS.
(a) Preference Allocation for Family Members of Permanent
Resident Aliens.--Section 203(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the
following:
``(2) Spouses, permanent partners, unmarried sons without
permanent partners, and unmarried daughters without permanent
partners of permanent resident aliens.--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or unmarried
daughters'' and inserting ``without permanent partners or the
unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
(b) Preference Allocation for Sons and Daughters of
Citizens.--Section 203(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(3)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the
following:
``(2) Married sons and daughters of citizens and sons and
daughters with permanent partners of citizens.--''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or sons or daughters with permanent
partners,'' after ``daughters''.
(c) Employment Creation.--Section 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) (8
U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
(d) Treatment of Family Members.--Section 203(d) (8 U.S.C.
1153(d)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``section
101(b)(1)''; and
(2) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``the
spouse''.
SEC. 6. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STATUS.
(a) Classification Petitions.--Section 204(a)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'';
(B) in clause (iii)--
(i) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(ii) in subclause (I), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears;
(C) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``permanent partner,''
after ``is the spouse,''; and
[[Page S711]]
(D) in clause (vi)--
(i) by inserting ``or termination of the permanent
partnership'' after ``divorce''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after
``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) in subclause (I)(aa), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(ii) in subclause (I)(bb), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' the first place it appears;
and
(iii) in subclause (II)(aa), by inserting ``(or the
termination of the permanent partnership)'' after
``termination of the marriage''.
(b) Immigration Fraud Prevention.--Section 204(c) (8 U.S.C.
1154(c)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'' each place it appears.
SEC. 7. ANNUAL ADMISSION OF REFUGEES AND ADMISSION OF
EMERGENCY SITUATION REFUGEES.
Section 207(c) (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``, permanent partner's,'' after
``spouse's''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, permanent partner,''
after ``spouse''.
SEC. 8. ASYLUM.
Section 208(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES.
Section 209(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 10. INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.--
Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(D)(iv), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,'';
(2) in paragraph (4)(C)(i)(I), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse'';
(3) in paragraph (6)(E)(ii), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
(4) in paragraph (9)(B)(v), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(b) Waivers.--Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by inserting ``permanent partner,''
after ``spouse,''; and
(2) in paragraph (12), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(c) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Health-Related Grounds.--
Section 212(g)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
(d) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Criminal and Related
Grounds.--Section 212(h)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)) is
amended by inserting ``permanent partner,'' after
``spouse,''.
(e) Waiver of Inadmissibility for Misrepresentation.--
Section 212(i)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``permanent partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
SEC. 11. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS AWAITING
THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.
Section 214(r) (8 U.S.C. 1184(r)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears.
SEC. 12. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN
ALIEN SPOUSES, PERMANENT PARTNERS, AND SONS AND
DAUGHTERS.
(a) Section Heading.--
(1) In general.--The heading for section 216 (8 U.S.C.
1186a) is amended by striking ``and sons'' and inserting ``,
permanent partners, sons,''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by amending the item relating to section 216 to read as
follows:
``Sec. 216. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
spouses, permanent partners, sons, and daughters.''.
(b) In General.--Section 216(a) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or permanent
partner'' after ``spouse'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
(c) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying
Marriage Improper.--Section 216(b) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``or Permanent
Partnership'' after ``Marriage''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by inserting ``or has ceased to satisfy the criteria
for being considered a permanent partnership under this
Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse''.
(d) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for
Removal of Condition.--Section 216(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(C),
(4)(B), and (4)(C), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'' each place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A), (3)(D), (4)(B), and (4)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after ``marriage''
each place it appears.
(e) Contents of Petition.--Section 216(d)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1186a(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(B) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'';
(ii) in subclause (I), by inserting before the comma at the
end ``, or is a permanent partnership recognized under this
Act''; and
(iii) in subclause (II)--
(I) by inserting ``or has not ceased to satisfy the
criteria for being considered a permanent partnership under
this Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
(II) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse''; and
(C) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 216(g) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marriage''.
SEC. 13. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN
ALIEN ENTREPRENEURS, SPOUSES, PERMANENT
PARTNERS, AND CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
(2) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(B), and (2)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each
place it appears.
(b) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying
Entrepreneurship Improper.--Section 216A(b)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1186b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'' in the matter following subparagraph (C).
(c) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for
Removal of Condition.--Section 216A(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)) is
amended, in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), and (3)(C), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 216A(f)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(f)(2))
is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after
``spouse'' each place it appears.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by amending the item relating to section 216A to read as
follows:
``Sec. 216A. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien
entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and
children.''.
SEC. 14. DEPORTABLE ALIENS.
Section 237(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting ``or permanent
partners'' after ``spouses'' each place it appears;
(2) in subparagraphs (E)(ii), (E)(iii), and (H)(i)(I), by
inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'';
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) Permanent partnership fraud.--An alien shall be
considered to be deportable as having procured a visa or
other documentation by fraud (within the meaning of section
212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and to be in the United States in violation
of this Act (within the meaning of subparagraph (B)) if--
``(i) the alien obtains any admission to the United States
with an immigrant visa or other documentation procured on the
basis of a permanent partnership entered into less than 2
years before such admission and which, within 2 years
subsequent to such admission, is terminated because the
criteria for permanent partnership are no longer fulfilled,
unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Homeland Security that such permanent
partnership was not contracted for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws; or
``(ii) it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
Homeland Security that the alien has failed or refused to
fulfill the alien's permanent partnership, which the
Secretary of Homeland Security determines was made for the
purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an
immigrant.''; and
(4) in paragraphs (2)(E)(i) and (3)(C)(ii), by inserting
``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each place it
appears.
SEC. 15. REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
Section 240 (8 U.S.C. 1229a) is amended--
(1) in the heading of subsection (c)(7)(C)(iv), by
inserting ``permanent partners,'' after ``spouses,''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
[[Page S712]]
SEC. 16. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL; ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.
Section 240A(b) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(D), by inserting ``or permanent
partner'' after ``spouse''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse'' each place it appears.
SEC. 17. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF
PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
(a) Prohibition on Adjustment of Status.--Section 245(d) (8
U.S.C. 1255(d)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''.
(b) Avoiding Immigration Fraud.--Section 245(e) (8 U.S.C.
1255(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent
partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) Paragraph (1) and section 204(g) shall not apply
with respect to a permanent partnership if the alien
establishes by clear and convincing evidence to the
satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security that--
``(i) the permanent partnership was entered into in good
faith and in accordance with section 101(a)(52);
``(ii) the permanent partnership was not entered into for
the purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an
immigrant; and
``(iii) no fee or other consideration was given (other than
a fee or other consideration to an attorney for assistance in
preparation of a lawful petition) for the filing of a
petition under section 204(a) or 214(d) with respect to the
alien permanent partner.
``(B) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations that
provide for only 1 level of administrative appellate review
for each alien under subparagraph (A).''.
(c) Adjustment of Status for Certain Aliens Paying Fee.--
Section 245(i)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)) is amended by
inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 18. APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES TO FOR
MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
REGARDING PERMANENT PARTNERSHIPS.
Section 275(c) (8 U.S.C. 1325(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage
or permanent partnership for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, fined not more than $250,000, or both.''.
SEC. 19. REQUIREMENTS AS TO RESIDENCE, GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
Section 316(b) (8 U.S.C. 1427(b)) is amended by inserting
``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
SEC. 20. NATURALIZATION FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS OF CITIZENS.
(a) In General.--Section 319 (8 U.S.C. 1430) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marital union'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or permanent partner''
after ``spouse'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marital union'';
(4) in subsection (e)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'';
(B) by inserting ``by the Secretary of Defense'' after ``is
authorized''; and
(C) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after
``marital union''; and
(5) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``or permanent
partner'' after ``spouse''.
(b) Savings Provision.--Section 319(e) (8 U.S.C. 1430(e))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to confer
a right for an alien to accompany a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States or to reside abroad with such
member, except as authorized by the Secretary of Defense in
the member's official orders.''.
SEC. 21. APPLICATION OF FAMILY UNITY PROVISIONS TO PERMANENT
PARTNERS OF CERTAIN LIFE ACT BENEFICIARIES.
Section 1504 of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000 (division B
of Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763-325) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``, PERMANENT PARTNERS,''
after ``SPOUSES'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, permanent
partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
(3) in each of subsections (b) and (c)--
(A) in each of the subsection headings, by inserting ``,
Permanent Partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
(B) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''
each place it appears.
SEC. 22. APPLICATION TO CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT.
(a) In General.--The first section of Public Law 89-732 (8
U.S.C. 1255 note) is amended--
(1) in the next to last sentence, by inserting ``,
permanent partner,'' after ``spouse'' the first 2 places it
appears; and
(2) in the last sentence, by inserting ``, permanent
partners,'' after ``spouses''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(51)(D) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(51)(D)) is amended by striking ``or spouse'' and
inserting ``, spouse, or permanent partner''.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 311. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower
Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the
National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act.
This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish
along the Lower Mississippi River Area as units of the National Park
System. I know there are several of my colleagues across the aisle that
do not want to authorize such studies because they only target one
area, or because it potentially will cost the Federal Government a
modest amount to conduct such a study. I can appreciate those
sentiments, but the good news with this particular study, is that the
local government feels this is so important to get done, they are
willing to pay for all or some of the study if necessary, because they
know these sites deserve Federal recognition as a unit of the National
Park Service.
This area in Southeastern Louisiana has contributed much to our
Nation's history, and there are many stories that have yet to be
preserved for future generations. Unless Congress acts to preserve
these historical assets, they will be lost forever. That is why I am
again for the fourth time, introducing this legislation. It is
important that this legislation become law and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to enact it.
In order to be designated as a unit in the National Park System, the
Department of the Interior must first conduct a special resources study
to determine whether an area possesses nationally significant natural,
cultural or recreational resources to be eligible for favorable
consideration.
This is exactly what my bill does--it asks the Department of the
Interior to take the first step in determining what I already know--
that the Lower Mississippi River Area would be a suitable and feasible
asset to the National Park Service.
As many from Louisiana are already aware, this area has vast
historical significance with cultural history. In the 1500s, Spanish
explorers traveled along the banks of the river. In 1682, Robert de
LaSalle claimed all the land drained by the area. In 1699, the site of
the first fortification on the Lower Mississippi river, known as Fort
Mississippi. Since then, it has been home to ten different
fortifications, including Fort St. Phillip and Fort Jackson.
Fort St. Philip, which was originally built in 1749, played a key
role during the Battle of New Orleans when American soldiers blocked
the British Navy from going upriver. Fort Jackson was built at the
request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous
local Civil War General, P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of
the famous Civil War battle known as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is
also referred to as the ``night the war was lost.'' As you can see,
from a historical perspective, this area has many treasures that
provide a glimpse into our past. These are treasures that have national
significance and they should be maintained and preserved.
In addition, there are many other important and unique attributes to
this area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and
levee system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes
site, to the Plaquemines Bend, and to two National Wildlife Refuges.
Finally, this area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many
different cultures have made this area home, including Creoles,
Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These
cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for the
transport of our Nation's energy, which is being produced by these same
people off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico. They have also created a
vibrant fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.
[[Page S713]]
I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent
addition to the National Park Service. However, the longer Congress
takes to act, the greater the opportunity for these treasures and their
rich history to erode away. Unfortunately, this area has weathered the
passing of several hurricanes, including Katrina and most recently
Isaac, and is now suffering from the impacts of the BP oil spill. All
of these events threaten to destroy these historical assets, but this
need not be the case. These assets need protection and this is the
first step in securing it. That is why I am re-introducing this bill--
to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of
including this area in the system and ultimately to begin the process
of adding this area as a unit of the National Park Service. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.
______
By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mrs. Fischer):
S. 317. A bill to require the Inspector General of the Environmental
Protection Agency to include certain assessments in reports; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at
the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and
transparency.
The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents
in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and
sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will
vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the
same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor
do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their
employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not
transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from
ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from
electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.
Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D
beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is
loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching,
overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The
request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What
can you do to change how they act?
Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do--
meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the
agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several
proposals to address these two areas.
My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing
transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings
agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional
Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial
agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance
documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes with the
rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. Using
guidance documents also shields the policy change from being reversed
by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.
Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance
document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of
Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by
expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the
Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the
agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal
responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did
an end-run around the American people and Congress.
My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are
covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations
would be.
Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to
cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them
for this critical support.
The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy
changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come
here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and
the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that
straightforward.
My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how
the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is
developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by
the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State
makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be
honored.
Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners
in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law
specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of
the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:
. . . air pollution control at its source is the primary
responsibility of States and local governments.
The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:
. . . to provide technical and financial assistance to
State and local governments in connection with the
development and execution of their air pollution prevention
and control programs.
Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
declares:
It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,
and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States
to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .
Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is
abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second-
class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the
text of a recent court opinion.
In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court
of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:
(t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for
pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for
determining how to meet those standards and regulating
sources within their borders.
Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored
the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at
us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the
time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried
to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.
I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much
better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather
than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,''
overreaching Federal plan.
The court explained it this way:
. . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial
opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the
good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified
States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the
States the initial opportunity to implement the required
reductions with respect to sources within their borders.
The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:
. . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore,
the rule must be vacated.
That is the holding of the court.
My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and
takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the
past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State
has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the
EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be
responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple
transparency and a true partner working relationship.
The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad
frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean
the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish
regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA
continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming.
But they do.
As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises.
But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as
a surprise.
Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing
statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its
regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility
[[Page S714]]
Act, for example, requires the agencies to publish:
During the months of October and April of each year . . . a
regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief
description of the subject area of any rule which the agency
expects to propose . . .
Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory
agenda twice a year.
These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the
Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA.
EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in
the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited
until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable.
The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the
election.
My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's
OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory
agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what
EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My
legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of
whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned
regulations.
My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal
requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be
honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.
My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that
the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't
be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the
agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting.
If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then
the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the
deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this
bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with
substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last
year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of
$20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required
by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and
accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according
to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.
I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to
reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt
frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency
and they promote responsible government.
I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that
bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal
agency.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 323. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for extended months of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs for kidney transplant patients and other renal dialysis
provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Comprehensive
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act with
my colleague Senator Thad Cochran.
More than 26 million American adults are living with chronic kidney
disease. Fortunately, many of these individuals are able to improve
their condition through medication and lifestyle change.
But more than half of a million Americans live with irreversible
kidney failure or end-stage renal disease. They have only two choices
to survive--both of them hard. They can receive regular and frequent
dialysis or they can receive a kidney transplant.
In 1972, Congress made a commitment to individuals with end-stage
renal disease, or ERSD, to cover the treatment they needed, including
possible transplants, under Medicare, regardless of their age.
Organ transplantation is a medical success story. Thousands of kidney
transplants are done every year, and for the patients fortunate enough
to receive a donated organ, the quality and length of their lives can
be dramatically improved.
But not everyone who needs a donated kidney receives one. There are
currently more than 100,000 Americans on the waiting list for a kidney
transplant.
Last year, 15,000 transplants were performed while more than 30,000
people were added to that waitlist.
Derek Haney is one of the lucky ones who beat those odds and received
a kidney transplant.
Derek is a brave young man raised in Effingham, IL, a small city in
central Illinois.
In 2008 the unexpected happened. Derek became chronically ill. After
regular trips to the hospital, Derek's doctors discovered that his
kidneys were only functioning at 10 percent. At the age of 23, Derek
was diagnosed with end stage renal disease.
For the next two and a half years of his life, Derek underwent
dialysis. Three times a week he would go in a 4-hour dialysis
treatment, while he waited for a kidney. The dialysis treatments meant
that Derek had to put his college plans on hold, but he continued to
work full-time and never gave up hope.
On July 15, 2010, Derek got his new kidney.
Two and a half years later, Derek is still healthy. He is pursuing a
degree in business administration at a local community college. He
hopes to transfer soon to a university where he can work toward a CPA
license.
Fortunate1y for Derek and his family, Medicare covered the expense of
dialysis--more than $75,000 a year for 2\1/2\ years. Medicare also paid
for Derek's kidney transplant at a cost of about $110,000.
For the last two and a half years, Medicare has covered the expensive
immunosuppressive medication Derek must take for the rest of his life
to ensure that his body doesn't reject his new kidney.
Here's the problem: Derek's Medicare coverage runs out in July.
Without Medicare coverage, Derek will be burdened with prescription
drug costs of roughly $1500 per month--more than he and almost any
family could afford.
There is an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for people with
end stage renal disease who, like Derek, are neither elderly nor
disabled.
For those transplant recipients, Medicare coverage, including
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, ends 36 months after
transplantation.
If only the need to continue the immunosuppressive drugs also ended
36 months after transplantation. But it doesn't.
Without immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many patients
find themselves back in a risky and frightening place--in need of a new
kidney.
A recent New England Journal of Medicine report estimates that
extending immunosuppressive drug coverage to people who now lose it
after 36 months will save Medicare approximately $200 million a year by
helping to prevent kidney rejections.
Extending immunosuppressive drug coverage saves lives and it saves
money.
Sadly, Derek isn't alone. It is estimated that over 45,000 successful
transplant recipients are at risk of losing their immunosuppressive
drug coverage.
This makes no sense morally, medically or economically.
I am pleased to join my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran, in
introducing the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for
Kidney Transplant Patients Act.
This bipartisan legislation would allow kidney transplant recipients
to continue Medicare coverage for the purpose of immunosuppressive
drugs only. All other Medicare coverage would end 36 months after the
transplant.
Our legislation will reduce the need for dialysis and repeated kidney
transplants. It will provide reliable, sustained access to critically
important, life-saving medications for thousands of Americans.
In both moral and economic terms, this is the right decision and I
urge our colleagues to join us in passing this reasonable, targeted,
lifesaving 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:
[[Page S715]]
S. 323
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 ``Comprehensive
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant
Patients Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. EXTENDED MONTHS OF COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE
DRUGS FOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT PATIENTS AND OTHER
RENAL DIALYSIS PROVISIONS.
(a) Medicare Entitlement to Immunosuppressive Drugs for
Kidney Transplant Recipients.--
(1) Kidney transplant recipients.--Section 226A(b)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``(except for eligibility for enrollment under part
B solely for purposes of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs
described in section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' before ``, with the
thirty-sixth month''.
(2) Individuals eligible only for coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.--
(A) Section 1836 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395o) is amended--
(i) by striking ``Every'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
Every''; and
(ii) by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Individuals Eligible for Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage.--Beginning on January 1, 2014, every individual
whose insurance benefits under part A have ended (whether
before, on, or after such date) by reason of section
226A(b)(2) is eligible for enrollment in the insurance
program established by this part solely for purposes of
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Sections 1837, 1838, and 1839 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p), 42 U.S.C.
1395(q), 42 U.S.C. 1395(r)) are each amended by striking
``1836'' and inserting ``1836(a)'' each place it appears.
(3) Enrollment for individuals only eligible for coverage
of immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1837 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1) Any individual who is eligible under section
1836(b) to enroll in the medical insurance program
established under this part for purposes of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs may enroll only in such manner and
form as may be prescribed by regulations, and only during an
enrollment period described in this subsection.
``(2) An individual described in paragraph (1) may enroll
beginning on the first day of the third month before the
month in which the individual first satisfies section
1836(b).
``(3) An individual described in paragraph (1) whose
entitlement for hospital insurance benefits under part A ends
by reason of section 226A(b)(2) on or after January 1, 2014,
shall be deemed to have enrolled in the medical insurance
program established by this part for purposes of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.''.
(4) Coverage period for individuals only eligible for
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.--
(A) In general.--Section 1838 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395q) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) In the case of an individual described in section
1836(b), the following rules shall apply:
``(1) In the case of such an individual who is deemed to
have enrolled in part B for coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs under section 1837(m)(3), such individual's coverage
period shall begin on the first day of the month in which the
individual first satisfies section 1836(b).
``(2) In the case of such an individual who enrolls in part
B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1837(m)(2), such individual's coverage period shall begin on
the first day of the month in which the individual first
satisfies section 1836(b) or the month following the month in
which the individual so enrolls, whichever is later.
``(3) The provisions of subsections (b) and (d) shall apply
with respect to an individual described in paragraph (1) or
(2).
``(4) In addition to the reasons for termination under
subsection (b), the coverage period of an individual
described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall end when the
individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title
under section 226(a), 226(b), or 226A.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Section 1838(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395q(b)) is amended, in the matter
following paragraph (2), by adding ``or section 1837(m)(3)''
after ``section 1837(f)'' each place it appears.
(5) Premiums for individuals only eligible for coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1839 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``No increase in the premium shall be effected
for individuals who are enrolled pursuant to section 1836(b)
for coverage only of immunosuppressive drugs.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Determination of Premium for Individuals Only
Eligible for Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs.--The
Secretary shall, during September of each year, determine and
promulgate a monthly premium rate for the succeeding calendar
year for individuals who enroll only for the purpose of
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b).
Such premium shall be equal to 35 percent of the monthly
actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over, determined
according to paragraph (1), for that succeeding calendar
year. The monthly premium of each individual enrolled for
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b) for
each month shall be the amount promulgated in this
subsection. Such amount shall be adjusted in accordance with
subsections (c) and (f).''.
(6) Government contribution.--Section 1844(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; plus'';
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) a Government contribution equal to the estimated
aggregate reduction in premiums payable under part B that
results from establishing the premium at 35 percent of the
actuarial rate under section 1839(j) instead of 50 percent of
the actuarial rate for individuals who enroll only for the
purpose of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1836(b).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following flush matter:
``The Government contribution under paragraph (4) shall be
treated as premiums payable and deposited for purposes of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).''.
(7) Extension of secondary payer requirements for esrd
beneficiaries eligible for coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs.--Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395(y)(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``With regard to immunosuppressive
drugs furnished to an individual who enrolls for the purpose
of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b)
on or after January 1, 2014, this subparagraph shall apply
without regard to any time limitation, except that when such
individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title
under sections 226(a) or 226(b), or entitled to or eligible
for benefits under this title under section 226A, the
provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B), and the time
limitations under this subparagraph, respectively, shall
apply.''.
(8) Ensuring coverage under the medicare savings program.--
Section 1905(p)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``or an individual
who is enrolled under part B for the purpose of coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b)'' after
``section 1818''.
(9) Part d.--Section 1860D-1(a)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(a)(3)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``(but not including an individual enrolled solely
for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section
1836(b))'' before the period at the end.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Burr,
Mr. Coburn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Risch, Mr. Kirk, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Moran, Mr. Portman, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Toomey, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Lee, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Heller, Mr. Scott, Mr. Flake,
Mr. Cruz, and Mrs. Fischer):
S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. 7
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States:
``Article--
``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds
of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of
Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of
outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
``Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United
States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of
such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and
sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law
for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll
call vote.
[[Page S716]]
``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year in which--
``(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
``(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross
domestic product of the United States for the calendar year
ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
``Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases
the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of
revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly
chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll
call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in
revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any
increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of
any tax.
``Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States
shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly
chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall
provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
``Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of
sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year
in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in
effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn
Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a
specific excess by a roll call vote.
``Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of
sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in
which the United States is engaged in a military conflict
that causes an imminent and serious military threat to
national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the
duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a
roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited
to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made
necessary by the identified military conflict.
``Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State
shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
``Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States Government except those derived from
borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the
United States Government except those for repayment of debt
principal.
``Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and
implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may
rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic
product.
``Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with
the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.''.
____________________