[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 543-550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 203. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify 
the requirements for participation in the visa waiver program and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to mitigate the immigration and 
security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program and its 
expansion.
  The Visa Waiver Program leaves open both a major gap in our domestic 
security and a way to exploit our immigration laws. The Strengthening 
the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would give the Department 
of Homeland Security, DHS, new tools to secure the Visa Waiver Program, 
consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.
  The bill would set a maximum low visa overstay rate for all visa 
waiver program countries; require a reevaluation of visa waiver program 
countries within 1 year; mandate that the administration will lose its 
authority to continue to expand the program if it does not track 97 
percent of those exiting and departing at our airports--based on 
arrival data, not just departure data; require an audit of the 
electronic travel authorization system, ESTA; and require current visa 
waiver countries to report on lost or stolen visas in order to remain 
in the visa waiver program.
  Senator Kyl and I have held multiple hearings over the years and time 
and time again we have expressed concern and requested improvements, 
but no changes have been forthcoming in how the Department of Homeland 
Security intends to implement this program.
  The hearings and the recent Government Accountability Office report 
found that the administration is not doing what it should to secure the 
program. Instead, the Visa Waiver Program has continued to expand 
without meeting the security needs of our country.
  In fact, just today the administration has announced that it has met 
the deadline for the electronic travel authorization system, ESTA, to 
be fully operational. However, the GAO report found that ESTA--the one 
security check for visa waiver travelers prior to arrival at our 
Nation's airports--has not been implemented effectively by the 
administration to make it a workable system for the airlines and 
embassies.
  The GAO report also found that the administration is still unable to 
track who comes in and out of this country. This is especially 
significant given that the program was recently expanded to countries 
with high visa overstay rates, bringing the number of participating 
countries to 35.
  This means that for the citizens of 35 countries--including 
Australia, Singapore, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom--entering the 
United States is as simple as purchasing an airline ticket

[[Page 544]]

and arriving at the airport with a valid passport in hand.
  The result is that these travelers not only bypass the interview and 
individualized security screening process, but they are also lost once 
they arrive in the U.S. because DHS is only checking when individuals 
depart at our airports, not if they overstay their visit.
  It is estimated that 40 percent of the current undocumented 
population are people who have overstayed their visas. That means that 
if there are 12 million undocumented people now in the U.S., 4.8 
million people overstayed their visa. The Visa Waiver Program is the 
achilles heel of our immigration system.
  The security risks associated with the Visa Waiver Program are even 
greater--Our Nation's security experts have stated repeatedly that the 
program provides an attractive option to terrorists looking to do 
Americans harm.
  At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27, 2007, DNI 
Director Mike McConnell testified that Al Qaeda is purposefully 
recruiting Europeans because they do not require a visa to come into 
this country.
  As Director McConnell said, this tactic gives Al Qaeda ``an extra 
edge in getting an operative or two or three into the country with the 
ability to carry out an attack that might be reminiscent of 9-11.''
  Secretary Chertoff reiterated these concerns when he stated that 
``terrorists are increasingly looking to Europe as both a target and a 
platform for terrorist attacks'' against the United States.
  In an interview with BBC's ``World News America,'' Secretary Chertoff 
acknowledged, ``the first time we encounter [visa waiver travelers] is 
when they arrive in the United States and that creates a very small 
window of opportunity to check them out.''
  These security risks are particularly apparent when we look at the 
statistics on the number of fraudulent and stolen passports and other 
international documents.
  Between January 2002 and June 2004, 28 foreign governments, including 
visa waiver countries, reported 56,943 stolen blank foreign passports 
to the State Department. And just this summer, a security van in London 
was hijacked, resulting in the loss of 3,000 blank British passports 
and visas that were destined for overseas embassies.
  DHS's own Inspector General, Clark Ervin has testified that: ``The 
lost and stolen passport problem is the greatest security problem 
associated with the Visa Waiver Program. Our country is vulnerable 
because gaps in our treatment of lost and stolen passports remain.''
  The Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act would 
put necessary security checks firmly in place and provide greater 
program oversight.
  We must act now to secure the Visa Waiver Program. I urge my 
colleagues to support this 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. 203

       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 ``Strengthening the Visa 
     Waiver Program to Secure America Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Program country.--The term ``program country'' means a 
     country designated as a program country under section 
     217(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1187(c)(1)).
       (2) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term 
     ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (3) Visa waiver program.--The term ``visa waiver program'' 
     means the visa waiver program carried out under section 217 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN 
                   PASSPORTS.

       (a) Enforcement of Existing Requirement.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, each 
     program country shall have in effect an agreement with the 
     United States as required by section 217(c)(2)(D) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(2)(D)).
       (b) Failure To Agree To Report.--
       (1) Suspension from the program.--If a program country does 
     not meet the requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     immediately suspend the program country's participation in 
     the visa waiver program.
       (2) Restoration to the program.--With respect to a country 
     that is suspended from participation in the visa waiver 
     program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall restore the 
     country's participation on the date that the Secretary 
     determines that the country meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a 
     country as a program country until after the date that the 
     Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of 
     subsection (a) have been met.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR PERIODIC EVALUATIONS 
                   OF PROGRAM COUNTRIES.

       (a) Enforcement of Existing Requirement.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     evaluate under section 217(c)(5)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)) each program country 
     that was designated as a program country prior to January 1, 
     2009. Such evaluation shall include the visa overstay rate 
     for each program country for the 1-year period ending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Visa Overstay Rate Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``visa overstay rate'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 217(c)(8)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)(C)), as amended by section 6.
       (c) Failure To Comply With Program Requirements.--
       (1) Suspension from the program.--If the periodic 
     evaluation prepared under subsection (a) shows that a program 
     country has a visa overstay rate that exceeds 2 percent, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     immediately suspend the program country's participation in 
     the visa waiver program.
       (2) Restoration to the program.--With respect to a country 
     that is suspended from participation in the visa waiver 
     program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall restore the 
     country's participation on the date that the Secretary 
     determines that the country's visa overstay rate does not 
     exceed 2 percent.
       (d) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a 
     country as a program country until after the date that the 
     Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of 
     subsection (a) have been met.

     SEC. 5. ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE VERIFICATION.

       (a) Requirement for Verification.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 217(c)(8) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``can verify'' and inserting ``verifies'';
       (ii) by inserting ``arrival and'' before ``departure''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``entry and'' before ``exit''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) by inserting ``entry and'' before 
     ``exit''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of such section 
     217(c)(8) is amended by inserting ``entry and'' before 
     ``exit''.
       (b) Limitation on New Program Countries.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may not designate a 
     country as a program country until after the date that the 
     Secretary certifies to Congress that the requirements of 
     clause (i) of subsection (c)(8)(A) of section 217 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by subsection 
     (a)(1), are met.
       (c) Audit.--
       (1) Requirement to conduct.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date that the certification described in clause (i) of 
     subsection (c)(8)(A) of section 217 the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), as amended by subsection 
     (a)(1), is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller of the 
     United States shall conduct an audit of the travel 
     authorization system described in subsection (h)(3) of that 
     section and submit a report on such audit to Congress.
       (2) Elements.--The report by paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) a description of the data collected by such system;
       (B) the number of individuals who were identified by such 
     system as being in violation of the immigration laws, 
     disaggregated by country; and
       (C) an explanation of any problems in implementing such 
     system encountered during the early stages of implementation 
     to better identify high-risk travelers and countries of 
     origin of such travelers.

     SEC. 6. VISA OVERSTAY RATES.

       Subparagraph (C) of section 217(c)(8) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

[[Page 545]]

     1187(c)(8)), as amended by section 5(a)(2), is further 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking the period at the end of the 
     first sentence and inserting ``, except that in no case may a 
     maximum visa overstay rate exceed 2 percent.'';
       (2) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv);
       (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) Data compilation.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall compile data from all appropriate databases to 
     determine the visa overstay rate for each country. Such 
     databases shall include--

       ``(I) the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS);
       ``(II) the Automated Fingerprint Identification System 
     (IDENT);
       ``(III) the Central Index System (CIS);
       ``(IV) the Computer Linked Application Information 
     Management Systems (CLAIMS);
       ``(V) the Deportable Alien Control System (DACS);
       ``(VI) the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
     System (IAFIS);
       ``(VII) the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS);
       ``(VIII) the Reengineered Naturalization Applications 
     Casework Systems (RNACS); and
       ``(IX) the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS).''; 
     and

       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Annual report.--Not less frequently than once each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing the visa overstay rate 
     for the previous fiscal year of each country designated as a 
     program country under paragraph (1).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Levin, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 204. A bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and 
exporting cartels illegal; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with ten of my 
colleagues, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. This 
legislation will authorize our Government, for the first time, to take 
action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time 
for the U.S. Government to fight back on efforts to fix the price of 
oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our amendment 
will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when 
they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic 
principles of free competition.
  NOPEC will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against 
nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the 
supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the 
doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations 
that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have 
introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This 
legislation passed the full Senate by a vote of 70-23 in June 2007 as 
an amendment to the 2007 Energy Bill before being stripped from that 
bill in the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC 
passed the other body as stand alone legislation in May 2007 by an 
overwhelming 345-72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this 
legislation into law and give our Nation a long needed tool to 
counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy.
  Throughout 2007 and 2008, crude oil and gasoline prices marched 
steadily upwards, peaking last summer at over $140 per barrel for crude 
and well over $4 per gallon for gasoline. In recent months, of course, 
these prices have plummeted as demand has dropped due to the serious 
global economic recession. But the recent declines in crude oil and 
gasoline prices should not fool us--the global oil cartel remains a 
major force conspiring to raise oil prices to the detriment of American 
consumers.
  The recent actions of the OPEC cartel demonstrate the dangers it 
presents. OPEC is doing everything it can to raise oil prices. On 
October 24, 2008, OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barrels 
a day, don December 17 OPEC agreed to a further 2.2 million barrels a 
day production cut. The OPEC cartel makes no secret of its motivation 
for these production cuts. OPEC President Chaib Khelil put it very 
simply in an interview published December 23, 2008, ``Without these 
cuts, I don't think we'd be seeing $43 [per barrel] today, we'd have 
seen in the $20s. . . . [H]opefully by the third quarter [of 2009] we 
will see prices rising.'' In another interview in December, Khelil was 
quoted as saying ``The stronger the decision [to cut production], the 
faster prices will pick up.''
  And if the price of crude oil begins to rise again as a result of 
these actions by OPEC, there is no doubt that millions of American 
consumers will feel the pinch every time they visit the gas pump. The 
Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the 
variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the 
cost of crude oil.
  Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates 
the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and 
should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged such an 
international price fixing conspiracy, there would no question that it 
would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently 
because it is a conspiracy of nations.
  For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly 
driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the 
oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in 
Government has yet tried to take any action. This NOPEC legislation 
will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a 
group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to 
restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law.
  It is also important to point out that this legislation will not 
authorize private lawsuits. It only authorizes the Attorney General to 
file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be in 
the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to 
whether to take action to enforce NOPEC. Our legislation will not 
require the Government to bring a legal action against OPEC member 
nations, and no private party will have the ability to bring such an 
action. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the 
executive branch. Our NOPEC legislation will give our law enforcement 
agencies a tool to employ against the oil cartel--but the decision on 
whether to use this tool will entirely be up to the Justice Department 
and, ultimately, the President. They can use this tool as they see 
fit--to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions, 
or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other 
considerations warrant it.
  NOPEC will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide 
behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to 
escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our amendment will 
overrule one 28 year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed 
to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial 
activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity.
  The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors 
cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can 
be no free market without this foundation. We should not permit any 
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
  Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not 
work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our 
NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice 
Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing 
conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real 
deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to oil prices to 
the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real 
weapon the U.S. Government has ever had to deter OPEC from its 
seemingly endless cycle of supply cutbacks designed to raise price. It 
will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real 
and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their 
illegal conduct. It will also deter additional nations who may today be 
considering joining OPEC.

[[Page 546]]

  I urge my colleagues to support our NOPEC legislation so that our 
Nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing 
conspiracy of oil-rich nations.
  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. 204

       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 ``No Oil Producing and 
     Exporting Cartels Act of 2009'' or ``NOPEC''.

     SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT.

       The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     after section 7 the following:

     ``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of 
     this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or 
     agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in 
     combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 
     or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 
     whether by cartel or any other association or form of 
     cooperation or joint action--
       ``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, 
     natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
       ``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or 
     any petroleum product; or
       ``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade 
     for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;
     when such action, combination, or collective action has a 
     direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the 
     market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, 
     or other petroleum product in the United States.
       ``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in 
     conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune 
     under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the 
     jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States 
     in any action brought to enforce this section.
       ``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court 
     of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state 
     doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action 
     brought under this section.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States may bring an action to enforce this section in any 
     district court of the United States as provided under the 
     antitrust laws.''.

     SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

       Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of 
     the Sherman Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 205. A bill to authorize additional resources to identify and 
eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by 
violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest 
Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009. This important legislation, 
which is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Durbin, and Feinstein, is 
aimed at addressing drug-related violence in Mexico by reducing the 
number of weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country.
  The ongoing violence in Mexico is having a devastating impact on the 
country. In 2008, more than 5,300 people were killed in Mexico--this is 
double the number in the previous year. During this last year, there 
were over 1,600 deaths just in Ciudad Juarez. Drug traffickers are 
warring with each other, assassinations of police and government 
officials are commonplace, lawyers and journalists have been killed, 
and many innocent civilians have been caught up in the crossfire.
  Border communities within the United States are also being directly 
impacted. Many of the people living in this region have strong family 
ties to Mexico and the violence makes it difficult to visit loved ones. 
U.S. border hospitals have had to provide medical care to the wounded 
under armed guard. And in New Mexico, we had to briefly shut down the 
Columbus Port of Entry due to gun battles in the Mexican border town of 
Palomas and provide police escorts to school buses passing through the 
area. At one point this last year, the entire police force in Palomas 
resigned due to threats by drug traffickers and the Chief of Police 
fled to the United States to seek asylum.
  Besides the horrific human toll this violence is having on 
communities throughout Mexico, it also impacts the overall economy of 
the border region. Everyday thousands of people travel back and forth 
between the United States and Mexico for business and pleasure. This 
flow of people and goods is an essential aspect of maintaining healthy 
economic activity on both sides of the border. However, the current 
security situation is hampering bilateral trade, new business ventures, 
and tourism. In these tough economic times, the violence exacerbates an 
already bad economic environment.
  The United States has taken some important steps to help Mexico fight 
drug traffickers, such as increasing bilateral cooperation and 
providing substantial financial assistance as part of the Merida 
initiative. However, there is much more that we can be doing to help 
quell this violence. One key area where more can and should be done is 
with regard to stopping the flow of weapons being smuggled into Mexico 
from the United States.
  According to the ATF, about 90 percent of the weapons confiscated in 
Mexico come from sources within the United States because firearms are 
much more readily accessible in the United States than in Mexico. These 
weapons are the so-called ``tools of the trade'' for narco-traffickers. 
They are the means by which cartels maintain control over drug 
corridors and the instrument they use to execute their scheme of 
violence and intimidation.
  In the four U.S. border States there are about 6,600 licensed gun 
dealers. The vast majority of these dealers act in accordance with the 
law, but drug gangs exploit the availability of weapons in the region 
to supply cartels on the Mexican side of the border with illegal high-
powered weapons.
  The ATF has a very successful initiative in place to combat 
southbound illicit weapons trafficking, know as Project Gunrunner, but 
they need more resources to adequately tackle the problem.
  The Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act would provide these much 
needed resources. Specially, this legislation would authorize $30 
million over 2 years to expand Project Gunrunner teams in the border 
region and $19 million to assign agents to U.S. consulates in Mexico to 
assist Mexican law enforcement with smuggling investigations.
  I would also like to make it clear that nothing in this bill limits 
the sale of firearms or places any additional restrictions on licensed 
dealers. This effort is only focused on enhancing the investigative 
capabilities of the ATF with regard to arms trafficking in order to 
weed out the bad actors and to ensure that weapons aren't being 
illegally smuggled across the border.
  The United States has traditionally focused on enhancing efforts to 
prevent illegal narcotics from being smuggled into the county. While we 
obviously need to dedicate resources toward this end, we also should be 
taking a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the northbound 
flow of narcotics is dependent on the southbound flow of weapons and 
currency. Denying traffickers the proceeds of drug sales and the 
ability to heavily arm their cartels is essential in reducing the drug 
flow into the United States.
  It is insufficient to simply rely on Mexican authorities to stop the 
flow of guns going into their country. Drug trafficking is a 
transnational threat and the solution must involve sustained 
cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We must do more on 
our side of the border to disrupt weapons smuggling if we are going to 
be successful in combating drug cartels.
  Instability and violence in Mexico is taking a toll on communities on 
both sides of the border. I strongly believe that this is an issue that 
deserves more

[[Page 547]]

attention, and I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan 
legislation.
  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. 205

       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 ``Southwest Border Violence 
     Reduction Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. PROJECT GUNRUNNER.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall dedicate and 
     expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner 
     initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute 
     individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across 
     the international border between the United States and 
     Mexico.
       (b) Activities.--In carrying out this section, the Attorney 
     General shall--
       (1) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United 
     States adjacent to the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico to support the expansion of Project 
     Gunrunner teams;
       (2) establish not fewer than 1 Project Gunrunner team in 
     each State along the international border between the United 
     States and Mexico; and
       (3) coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal law 
     enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement 
     agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive 
     manner.
       (c) Additional Staff.--The Attorney General may hire Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and 
     otherwise expend additional resources needed to adequately 
     support, Project Gunrunner.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 
     and 2011 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in cooperation with 
     the Secretary of State, shall--
       (1) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in 
     Mexico, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies in 
     conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking 
     and other criminal enterprises;
       (2) provide the equipment and technological resources 
     necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms 
     recovered in Mexico; and
       (3) support the training of Mexican law enforcement 
     officers in serial number restoration techniques, canine 
     explosive detection, and antitrafficking tactics.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $9,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 
     and 2011 to carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
   S. 206. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to establish a program to help States expand the education 
system to include at least 1 year of early education preceding the year 
a child enters kindergarten; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Early 
Education Act. Early education is critical to preparing children across 
our Nation with the initial skills and abilities to successfully begin 
their education. While the amount of support for early education has 
been increasing, great discrepancies remain between the quality of 
programs and the level of access from State to State.
  This bill is a step forward in making a national commitment to giving 
all children access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs that have 
been proven to have a solid impact on a child's success later in school 
and in life.
  Of the more than 8 million 3- and 4-year-olds that could be in early 
education, just over half are enrolled in an early education program. 
In my State of California alone, just fewer than 60 percent of 3- and 
4-year-olds are in some kind of preschool.
  The result is that too many children enter elementary school 
unprepared to learn.
  Studies have shown that children who participate in pre-kindergarten 
programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning 
retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more 
enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance 
records.
  Almost all experts now agree that an early education experience is 
one of the most effective strategies for improving later school 
performance. The National Research Council reported that pre-
kindergarten educational opportunities are critical in developing early 
language and literacy skills and preventing reading difficulties in 
young children.
  The future of our Nation's economy depends on the next generation of 
workers, and high-quality early childhood education is key to preparing 
them for their careers. In the long run, pre-kindergarten programs pay 
for themselves. Decades of research have proven that early education 
programs yield between $7 to $16 for every dollar invested.
   My bill, the Early Education Act, would create a program in at least 
10 States to provide 1 year of pre-kindergarten early education in 
public schools. The bill would require a dollar for dollar match by the 
States and would authorize no less than $300 million annually for these 
programs. These funds would be used by States to supplement--not 
supplant--other Federal, State or local funds. This bill would serve 
almost 150,000 children across the country.
  Our children need a solid foundation that builds on our current 
education system by providing them with early learning skills. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for health insurance premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health 
Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's workers and working 
families deal with dramatic increases in health care costs. The 
legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct their health insurance 
premiums up to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.
  While this deduction will certainly not solve all of the problems in 
our health care system, it will provide help for working individuals 
and families who have seen health care premium costs drastically rise. 
Since 1999, the average health insurance premium for workers covering 
their families has more than doubled. A recent survey by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation found that 40 percent of employers that offer health 
benefits are likely to increase the amount their employees pay in 
premiums.
  This is an issue of fairness. Current law provides a patchwork of tax 
deductions for health care costs depending upon an individual's 
employer, the type of health care plan provided by their employer, and/
or percentage of income spent on health care, among other things.
  Unfortunately this patchwork has left out many employees who face 
increasing premiums or are buying high cost health plans on their own. 
This legislation rectifies that unfairness and will help people meet 
rising health care costs. It would help those currently purchasing 
coverage to continue to do so, as well as helping people who are 
uninsured to purchase coverage.
  This legislation is particularly important for employees in small 
businesses. Many small businesses across the country have been forced 
by the rising cost of health care to shift an increasing amount of 
health insurance costs to their employees. These are hard working 
Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy.
  Now more than ever we need legislation that provides targeted 
assistance to help families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues 
to support my legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 212. A bill to expand the boundaries of the Gulf of the Farallones 
National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank National Marine 
Sanctuary, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell 
Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary

[[Page 548]]

Modification and Protection Act will protect one of the world's most 
biologically-diverse and productive marine regions. I am proud to be 
joined in this effort by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Senator Dianne 
Feinstein.
  Established in 1981 and 1989 respectively, the Gulf of the Farallones 
and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries have helped protect the 
special marine waters and coastline that are quintessentially 
Californian. My bill will protect an even greater part of my State's 
coast by expanding the sanctuaries' boundaries to include more of 
northern California's great coastal upwelling area, one of only four on 
the planet.
  Upwelling areas are places where deeper water comes up to the 
surface, bringing the nutrients needed by marine algae to grow and 
support all higher forms of marine life. Though coastal upwelling areas 
comprise only 1 percent of the world's ocean they produce 20 percent of 
its fish. The area from Point Arena to Bodega Bay, currently outside 
the sanctuaries' boundaries, is particularly important since it 
consistently has the most intense upwelling in all of North America and 
an enormous capacity to support marine life. I am proud that my bill 
will expand the sanctuaries' boundaries to protect this upwelling area.
  The unique productivity of this region is illustrated by the 
abundance and diversity of marine life it supports: 36 species of 
marine mammals, including the endangered blue and humpback whales; 
numerous coastal and migratory seabirds, including the black-footed 
albatross; endangered leatherback turtles; and Coho salmon. Expanding 
the existing sanctuaries to include this area is necessary to protect 
this remarkable ecosystem from pollution and habitat degradation.
  My bill has broad, local support, including from the California 
Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the Counties 
of Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino, and the cities in the expansion 
region. It is also supported by fishermen, including the Pacific Coast 
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, by far the largest and most 
active association of commercial fishermen on the West Coast. Fishermen 
recognize the urgency of passing this legislation to preserve the water 
quality and habitat essential for good fishing.
  My bill will help preserve an incomparable gem of an ecosystem. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 213. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure air 
passengers have access to necessary services while on a grounded air 
carrier, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to re-introduce the 
Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act, a critical piece of airline 
passenger safety legislation.
  Anyone who has traveled recently recognizes that the delays travelers 
are encountering at airports are a national problem that needs our 
immediate attention.
  Americans are all too familiar with the numerous horror stories of 
passengers trapped in airplanes sitting on runways for sometimes as 
much as 11 hours without adequate food or water, overflowing restrooms, 
and no opportunity to deplane.
  The delays continue. On the Sunday before Christmas 2008, more than 
250 passengers on a Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Boston 
were diverted to Bangor, ME, where they spent about 6 hours idling on 
the tarmac before they were told that they were going to deplane for 
the night and would have to find shelter and transportation on their 
own.
  When these passengers returned the next day for their trip home, not 
only was their flight delayed 5 hours but they also spent another 2 
hours idling on the tarmac before finally flying to Boston.
  In 1999, the airlines had an opportunity to address the stranding of 
airline passengers on tarmacs across the country, but despite those 
efforts little has changed.
  Last March a Federal appeals court ruling struck down New York 
State's Passenger Bill of Rights law, stating that it is up to the 
Congress to set a national Federal standard.
  To meet this immediate need for Federal legislation, I am re-
introducing the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act, along with 
Senator Snowe, to give airline passengers basic protections when they 
are facing these delays and disruptions in their travel.
  This legislation requires airlines to give passengers adequate food, 
water, facilities, and medical attention when planes are delayed on the 
tarmac.
  In addition, the bill requires each air carrier to develop an 
emergency contingency plan, to be reviewed and approved by the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) that identifies a clear timeframe to 
allow passengers to deplane if they choose and if the pilot deems it 
safe.
  Airlines will need to give passengers the option of deplaning every 3 
hours, with exceptions to maintain passenger safety and airport 
efficiency.
  Our legislation also includes a few additional provisions from the 
FAA Reauthorization bill passed by the House in the last Congress. Our 
bill requires airports to develop plans to handle stranded passenger 
aircraft and creates a DOT hotline for consumer complaints. It would 
also permit the DOT to levy fines against air carriers or airports that 
do not submit or adhere to the contingency plans.
  The European Union enacted a Passenger Bill of Rights in 2005 and 
Canada passed similar legislation last year. It is time for the United 
States to step up and make a serious commitment to the millions of 
Americans that rely on safe and effective air travel.
  As the number of airline passengers is expected to increase to 1.3 
billion by 2025, we can't afford a ``business as usual'' attitude when 
it comes to passenger safety and efficiency at our nation's busiest 
airports.
  Consumers deserve access to food, water, and medical attention when 
stranded on an aircraft tarmac due to delays. Congress has the ability 
to ensure airline passengers' fundamental rights are protected by 
enacting our Passenger Bill of Rights legislation.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation 
in this Congress.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today on behalf 
of the millions of travelers throughout this country. Before I begin, I 
would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Boxer for being 
such a fantastic partner in this effort; an effort that sets aside 
partisanship to protect America's traveling public. Her aggressive, 
heartfelt leadership on this issue has been so essential in moving this 
legislation forward and keeping it at the forefront of the public 
consciousness.
  To my regret, each one of us is far too familiar with horror stories 
of passengers stranded on airplanes for hours at a time with no access 
to food, water or even functional restrooms. Events like the 
unconscionable delays at JFK Airport in New York in February of 2007 
are the most commonly referenced, but these sorts of events are 
occurring on a daily basis. Such dramatic incidents prompted calls for 
congressional action. That call was heard, and its answer is this 
Passenger Bill of Rights before us today. But as time went on, and this 
legislation before us today languished, the chorus for change grew 
quiet. The reasons why we first proposed the Passenger Bill of Rights 
have not dissipated; in fact, they have only increased.
  The 2008 Air Quality Rating report, which quantifies the performances 
of the various airlines when it comes to customer service, indicated it 
was ``the worst year for airlines Ever.'' Delays continue to escalate. 
In fact, despite nearly a 10 percent reduction in capacity last year, 
delays actually climbed to a record high; an average of nearly an hour 
per delay.
  At a time when airlines are grounding flights without notice and 
passengers face interminable waits in aircraft and on tarmacs with 
little or no

[[Page 549]]

idea as to when they might depart, there are no safeguards in place to 
protect the rights of America's travelers--the time is now for Congress 
to do the right thing and finally stand with America's passengers. The 
Federal court system agrees with us; in voiding New York State's own 
Passenger Bill of Rights, the Second United States Court of Appeals 
decision indicated that such a Bill of Rights required ``a Federal 
standard.'' The airlines declared victory as the New York law was 
overturned; according to the airlines, it would herald a jumble of 
changing regulations among different states, making it too difficult to 
navigate. However, when presented with the option of having a national 
standard by Senator Boxer and myself, they opposed that proposal as 
well. It seems the airlines want carte blanche to treat passengers as 
they wish, with no recourse for that individual. It is clear, Congress 
must take this matter in hand.
  Simply put, Congress has run out of excuses. The courts have 
definitively ruled that this is the Federal Government's 
responsibility. We have not just a right, but a responsibility to the 
American people to ensure that there is some level of accountability, 
some minimum standard. If a patron visits a restaurant that does not 
offer some modicum of working restrooms or provide adequate food and 
water, that customer can leave the restaurant and find another. For the 
airline passenger, that is not an option. They are trapped at the mercy 
of the airline; airlines whose only concern is the bottom line and 
getting that aircraft off the ground, however long that might take.
  Waiting for the airlines to alter their customer service model isn't 
going to work. Thanks to Congressional prodding, the airlines put into 
place their voluntary Customer Service Agreement in 1999. They have had 
almost a decade to follow through with establishing some basic 
commitment to customer service and failed miserably. That is not my 
conclusion; the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 
agreed with that assessment. It is clear that after years of refusing 
to adopt a commitment to provide customer service to the American 
people, the airline industry will not take action unless Congress 
requires them to do so. This time, Congress needs to show it is serious 
about protecting passengers.
  By our actions, we can show the American people that we are on their 
side and are working to protect their interests. Never again, should a 
family be forced to sit on a tarmac for 10 hours, deprived of the most 
basic of necessities. Canada was able to pass their passenger bill of 
rights legislation, so if Canada can do it, then there is no reason 
that Congress cannot do the same. By acting swiftly, and with resolve, 
we can take up and pass an FAA Reauthorization that includes the 
Passenger Bill of Rights, we can restore America's trust in our 
airlines and guarantee them a standard of service we should all be 
entitled to.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Cardin):
  S. 214. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
permit qualifying States to use their allotments under the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program for any fiscal year for certain 
Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise with co-sponsors Senators Leahy, 
Lieberman, and Cardin to introduce and ask your support for the 
Children's Health Equity and Technical Amendment Act.
  Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or 
SCHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in 
Medicaid prior to the enactment of SCHIP has been unfairly penalized 
for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching 
rate available to other States for children at similar levels of 
poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, 
Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the 
original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134 
percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in SCHIP 
but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont, 
Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including 
Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and 
Maryland.
  As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association 
reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative 
states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before 
the enactment of SCHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these 
goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding 
flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage 
of the majority of uninsured children in their states.''
  For 6 years, our group of States has sought to have this inequity 
addressed. Early in 2003, I introduced the Children's Health Equity Act 
of 2003 with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we 
worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S. 
312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee. This compromise extended 
expiring SCHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in 
order to meet budgetary caps.
  The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of 
our State's SCHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children at 
150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior 
to the enactment of SCHIP. That language was maintained in conference 
and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public 
Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference 
language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode 
Island and needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed, 
H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17, 
2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I 
introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem 
caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change. 
Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it must 
be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, this authority was renewed 
through fiscal year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the National Institutes 
of Health Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-482. Without future 
authority, the inequity would continue with SCHIP allotments.
  This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all 
future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use our SCHIP 
allotments to pay for health care services of children. In order to 
bring these requirements in-line with those of other States, it would 
also lower the threshold at which New Mexico and other effected States 
could utilize the funds from 150 percent of the Federal poverty level 
to 125 percent.
  There is strong bipartisan support for addressing this inequity. 
Legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress in both H.R. 3584 by 
Republican Representative Barton, and 141 co-sponsors, and S. 2086 by 
Senator Trent Lott and other Republican leadership to expand the 
category of children eligible through this correction to 133 percent of 
the Federal poverty level.
  This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in 
States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the SCHIP inequity, New 
Mexico has been allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years 
1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 
million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico 
has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal SCHIP 
allocations.
  This legislation would correct this problem.
  The bill does not take money from other States' SCHIP allotments. It 
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific SCHIP allotments 
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other 
States across the country are doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 550]]

  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 214

       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 ``Children's Health Equity 
     Technical Amendments Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE CHIP ALLOTMENT 
                   FOR ANY FISCAL YEAR FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Elimination of Fiscal Year and Percentage 
     Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as amended by 
     section 201(b)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), is amended by 
     striking ``not more than 20 percent of any allotment under 
     section 2104 for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 
     2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009'' and inserting ``a fiscal 
     year allotment under section 2104''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Effective as if included in the 
     enactment of section 201(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 
     SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), paragraph 
     (2) of that section is repealed.
       (b) Modification of Allowable Expenditures.--Section 
     2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii)) 
     is amended by striking ``150'' and inserting ``125''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply to 
     expenditures made on or after that date.

                          ____________________