[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3801-3820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 421. A bill to impose a temporary moratorium on the phase out of 
the Medicare hospice budget neutrality adjustment factor; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce the Medicare Hospice Protection Act, which will place a one-
year moratorium on a final rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, CMS, reducing payments to hospice providers and 
ensure Medicare beneficiaries' access to hospice care.
  More than 1.3 million Americans depend on hospice for high quality 
and compassionate end-of-life care each year. Unfortunately, on October 
1, 2008, CMS issued a final rule to reduce hospice reimbursement rates 
in Medicare. This reduction of the hospice wage index will take $2.1 
billion out of hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries over the next 5 
years.
  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, is currently 
examining the payment system for hospice care. We must allow MedPAC to 
complete this important review of the hospice Medicare benefit and make 
payment recommendations, which is expected in 2009. The Hospice 
Protection Act, introduced by myself and Senators Harkin, Wyden, 
Roberts, and Rockefeller, will maintain access to hospice care for 
seniors.
  Hospice is an efficient and cost-effective health care model. Hospice 
provides individuals at the end of their lives, as well as their 
families, with comfort and compassion when they are

[[Page 3802]]

needed most. Hospice care enables a person to retain his or her dignity 
and maintain quality of life during the end of life. An independent 
Duke University study in 2007 showed that patients receiving hospice 
care cost the Medicare program about $2,300 less than those who did 
not, resulting in an annual savings of more than $2 billion.
  In April 28, 2008, just before the Notice of Proposed Rule Making was 
released, a bipartisan group of more than 40 Senators wrote to 
Secretary Leavitt and asked him to stop further action and wait for 
MedPAC recommendations on hospice payment issues. On July 28, 2008, 
before the final rule was released, Senators Harkin, Wyden, Roberts and 
I wrote to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton, to urge him to 
stop the regulation from being finalized and to consider the burden 
that this regulation will put on the hospice community.
  Access to quality compassionate hospice care is critical for Medicare 
beneficiaries. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in support of the 
Hospice Protection Act and to work toward its swift passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
        Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Cochran, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cardin, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Begich, Mr. Casey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        Wyden, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 422. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and 
the Public Health Service Act to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and 
treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases 
in women; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical 
health issue affecting too many women: heart disease, a disease that 
surprisingly affects more women than men.
  As women, we tend to be great at taking care of everyone around us--
our children, our spouses, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we do not 
do nearly as well taking care of ourselves sometimes. I suspect we all 
know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms 
exhibiting symptoms of heart attack, only to be told they were 
suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion.
  For women, there are a lot of misconceptions about heart disease, but 
here are the facts.
  Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men.
  Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the 
leading cause of death for women in the United States and in Michigan. 
According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, a third of 
all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease.
  One in three adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease.
  Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native 
American women, are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke.
  These reasons are why Senator Lisa Murkowski and I are reintroducing 
the HEART for Women Act in the Senate today to turn these startling 
statistics around. Our bill is a three-prong approach to fighting heart 
disease by raising awareness, strengthening research, and increasing 
access to screening programs for more women. I am so pleased that 
nearly a quarter of the Senate is joining us today in sponsoring this 
legislation, and that that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Mary Bono Mack 
are introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that support material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                American Heart Association, February 12, 2009.

     Heart Disease and Stroke. You're the Cure.

     Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of 
     the American Heart Association and our approximately 22 
     million volunteers and supporters nationwide, we applaud you 
     for your re-introduction of the HEART for Women Act.
       As your legislation recognizes, too many American women and 
     their healthcare providers still think of heart disease as a 
     ``man's disease,'' even though about 50,000 more women than 
     men die from cardiovascular diseases each year. And 
     unfortunately, while we as a nation have made significant 
     progress in reducing the death rate from cardiovascular 
     diseases in men, the death rate in women has barely declined 
     (17 percent decline in men versus a 2 percent decline in 
     women over the last 25 years). Even more alarmingly, the 
     death rate in younger women ages 35 to 44 has actually been 
     increasing in recent years.
       The American Heart Association and its American Stroke 
     Association division is a strong supporter of the HEART for 
     Women Act because it would improve the prevention, diagnosis, 
     and treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other 
     cardiovascular diseases in women and ultimately help end the 
     disparity that women face. Your legislation is particularly 
     important in the current economic recession, where Americans 
     are losing their jobs and their health insurance coverage and 
     women may be foregoing needed screening that could aid in the 
     early identification and treatment of heart disease and 
     stroke.
       More specifically, your legislation would: 1) authorize the 
     expansion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
     WISEWOMAN program, which provides free heart disease and 
     stroke screening and lifestyle counseling to low-income, 
     uninsured and underinsured women, to all 50 states; 2) 
     educate women and healthcare professionals about the risks 
     women face from cardiovascular diseases; and 3) provide 
     clinicians and their women patients with better information 
     about the efficacy and safety of new treatments for heart 
     disease and stroke.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this important 
     legislation. We look forward to working with you to get the 
     HEART for Women Act enacted into law in this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                               David A. Josserand,
                                            Chairman of the Board.
                                     Timothy J. Gardner, MD, FAHA,
     President.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 29, 2008]

 Women's Heart Disease: It's the Leading Killer, but Patient Care Lags 
That for Men--as Cardiac Science Advances, Women Find Treatment Lagging

                           (By Judith Graham)

       Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in 
     the U.S., yet a wealth of data shows female cardiac patients 
     receive inferior medical care compared with men.
       Too many physicians still discount the idea that a woman 
     could be suffering from heart disease, delaying or denying 
     needed medical interventions, experts note. Most community 
     hospitals in the U.S. still are not following guidelines for 
     treating women with heart attacks. And primary care doctors 
     don't do as much as they could to emphasize prevention.
       As a result, women are failing to reap the full benefits of 
     enormous advances in cardiovascular medicine.
       The point was underscored this month by a study published 
     in the journal Circulation finding that women who have heart 
     attacks receive fewer recommended treatments in hospitals 
     than men, including aspirin, beta blocker medications, 
     angioplasties, clot-busting drugs and surgeries to re-
     establish blood flow. Women with the most serious heart 
     attacks, known as STEMIs, were significantly more likely to 
     die at a hospital than men.
       ``We need to do a better job of defining women's symptoms 
     and treating them aggressively and rapidly, as we do for 
     men,'' said Dr. Hani Jneid, the study's lead author and 
     assistant professor of medicine at the Baylor College of 
     Medicine in Houston.
       In Israel, when guidelines have been applied much more 
     rigorously, the mortality difference between the sexes all 
     but disappeared, according to a July study in the American 
     Journal of Medicine.
       Outside hospitals, too few internists, family doctors, 
     obstetricians and gynecologists are implementing 
     recommendations for preventing heart disease in women, 
     experts say. Eighty percent of heart attacks in women could 
     be prevented if women changed their eating habits, got 
     regular exercise, managed their cholesterol and blood 
     pressure, and followed other preventive measures.
       Although death rates from cardiovascular disease have 
     fallen, the condition killed 455,000 women in 2006, according 
     to data from the American Heart Association. Heart disease 
     causes about 72 percent of cardiovascular fatalities; the 
     rest are strokes and other related conditions.
       The next decade could see major advances as scientists 
     better understand how the biology of heart disease differs in 
     women, said

[[Page 3803]]

     Dr. Joan Briller, director of the Heart Disease in Women 
     program at the University of Illinois Medical Center at 
     Chicago.
       Already, for example, researchers have learned that plaque 
     deposits tend to be spread more widely in women than in men, 
     resulting in fewer big blockages in the arteries. That means 
     standard therapies such as angioplasty are often less 
     effective in women. Also, women metabolize certain heart 
     drugs at a different rate than men.
       Women should learn about the symptoms of acute heart 
     disease--which can differ from those in men--respond promptly 
     if they sense something is wrong, and ``find physicians who 
     care about them,'' said Dr. Annabelle Volgman, medical 
     director of the Heart Center for Women at Rush University 
     Medical Center.
       ``Ask your doctor: Are you familiar with the guidelines for 
     the prevention of heart disease in women published in 2007? 
     Do you follow them? If they say 'no,' find yourself another 
     doctor,'' she said.
       These Chicago-area women learned the importance of that 
     advice the hard way:
       Elizabeth Hein of Chicago was 27 when she began feeling a 
     tight, squeezing feeling in her chest, ``like a bone was 
     stuck in my heart,'' she said.
       When it didn't go away, Hein visited her primary-care 
     doctor. ``You're young and healthy; don't worry,'' she 
     remembers him saying. Take aspirin, he advised.
       The disturbing sensation sent Hein to the doctor four more 
     times over the next six months. She was fine, he repeated. 
     Hein was in good shape and running 3 to 5 miles daily.
       One day at work, Hein felt numbness spread up her arm and 
     into her neck. Breathing became difficult. ``I'm sitting 
     there thinking my doctor doesn't believe anything is wrong; 
     what should I do?'' said Hein, now 38.
       At a nearby hospital, Hein remembers, a triage nurse 
     briefed a skeptical emergency room doctor on her 
     electrocardiogram.
       ``She's too young. It can't be a heart attack,'' she heard 
     the doctor say behind a curtain.
       When he examined Hein, he asked what drugs she took. 
     (Cocaine can simulate heart attack symptoms.) After several 
     hours, the doctor sent Hein home. She later learned from her 
     primary-care physician that she had, indeed, had a heart 
     attack.
       ``My overwhelming feeling was relief: Finally he 
     acknowledged something was really wrong,'' said Hein, who 
     soon changed doctors.
       ``If your doctor won't listen, fire him and find one who 
     will,'' she said.
       That lesson was brought home painfully three years ago when 
     Hein's mother began to suffer lower back pain and fatigue. 
     Her Minnesota doctor sent her to a masseuse. A month later, 
     when she returned to the doctor because she was retaining 
     water, he reportedly told her: ``You're an older woman. It's 
     normal.''
       Weeks later, Mabel Hein died of a massive heart attack.
       ``They missed it because they dismissed her too,'' her 
     daughter said. ``What I tell other women now is don't let it 
     happen to you.''
       In March 2007, a screening test told Michelle Smietana of 
     Gurnee her blood pressure and cholesterol levels were 
     excellent.
       ``I thought that's fantastic, no problems there,'' said 
     Smietana, 35.
       Eight hours later, she was in a hospital emergency room 
     with a heart attack.
       It began at dinner with a friend, when the computer 
     specialist felt an achy pain at the right shoulder blade. By 
     the time she got to her car, the feeling had crept up into 
     her throat, where it settled in the soft spot under her chin.
       ``At first I thought I'd hurt a muscle. Then I thought: `Am 
     I having an allergic reaction?''' Smietana said. ``All the 
     time, I felt, whatever this is, I really don't like it.''
       Doctors at an urgent care center sent Smietana to Condell 
     Medical Center after a test for a cardiac marker came back 
     positive. There Smietana received aggressive treatment and 
     ultimately discovered that a prolonged coronary artery spasm 
     had interrupted blood flow through her narrower-than-usual 
     arteries.
       ``My first reaction was a weird feeling of shame, because I 
     was only 33 and this wasn't supposed to be happening,'' 
     Smietana said. ``Then, I felt kind of guilty, because I'm a 
     little heavy and a little underexercised.''
       Moving on from the episode was terrifying, she said. 
     ``Because it came out of nowhere, you're not sure if it's 
     going to come back again and if you'll survive the next 
     time,'' she said.
       She credits three months of cardiac rehabilitation with 
     defeating that fear and learning how to move again and take 
     better care of herself.
       Today, Smietana tells women: ``If your body tells you 
     something doesn't feel right, listen to it and take it 
     seriously. I did and I got lucky.''
       Helen Pates' grandmother died in her sleep of a massive 
     heart attack around age 40. Her mother also suffered from 
     heart disease, as did several maternal relatives.
       All this was detailed in her medical records. Yet when 
     Pates developed persistent fatigue and occasional bouts of 
     nausea, not one of seven Chicago doctors she consulted 
     ordered cardiac exams.
       Instead, they scanned her liver, her brain, her 
     gastrointestinal tract. ``They all said the same thing: 
     `We're not finding anything. You have a demanding career, a 
     busy life. It's probably stress-related,''' said Pates, who 
     lives in Chicago and manages money for people with high net 
     worth.
       Then in 2005 Pates awoke at 3 a.m. with excruciating pain 
     on the left side of her back and severe shortness of breath. 
     Crawling out of bed, she managed to drive to Rush University 
     Medical Center.
       A few hours later, surgeons told Pates she had a large 
     aortic aneurysm--a bulge in her body's main blood vessel--
     that was about to rupture. Doctors inserted a stent that 
     caused the aneurysm to shrink and eventually vanish.
       Within three months Pates' energy began to return, and a 
     year later she was feeling like herself again.
       Now 43, Pates said she's upset so many doctors dismissed 
     her symptoms.
       ``As a woman, you need to stay on top of your health,'' she 
     said. ``Make yourself a priority. And if you have a family 
     history, like I did, and don't feel well, ask your doctor if 
     you could be having problems with your heart.''
       The first time Debbie Dunn collapsed, doctors diagnosed 
     pneumonia. A high fever, they said, had caused her cold 
     sweats and thumping heart.
       The next three times Dunn felt on the verge of collapse, 
     her heart racing wildly, medical providers told her she was 
     having panic attacks.
       Eventually a cardiologist gave her a new diagnosis: 
     supraventricular tachycardia, an abnormally rapid heart 
     rhythm. ``It's benign,'' Dunn says he told her.
       For years, Dunn visited the cardiologist occasionally but 
     primarily relied on a technique he taught her to control 
     symptoms. Still, more and more often, she said, ``My heart 
     felt like tennis shoes in the drier doing flip-flops.''
       In 2002, at a restaurant with her husband, Dunn felt what 
     she calls a ``ripping, burning sensation above my breast.'' 
     Her left arm went numb, then started to ache.
       At a nearby hospital, after hours of waiting, a nurse 
     casually told Dunn she'd had a massive heart attack. A 
     cardiologist said her heart was profoundly damaged and 
     operating at about 30 percent of capacity. Dunn was 
     prescribed medications but felt perpetually exhausted.
       ``I tried to be a good mom, a good wife, and go back to my 
     activities but I couldn't keep up,'' said Dunn, 52. Her 
     cardiologist prescribed another medication for inflammation, 
     but it didn't help either.
       A turning point came when Dunn read an article in O 
     magazine on women and heart disease. Seeing herself in the 
     story, she went to see Oprah Winfrey's cardiologist. In the 
     physician's office, having a cardiac stress test for the 
     first time, Dunn had another heart attack.
       Today, the Libertyville resident has a pacemaker. 
     Channeling anger over her mistreatment into activism, Dunn 
     runs a support group for women with heart disease at 
     Glenbrook Hospital in Glenview and Condell Medical Center and 
     is starting another at Lake Forest Hospital.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Menendez, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Burr):
  S. 423. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
advance appropriations for certain medical care accounts of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs by providing two-fiscal year budget 
authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this is an important day for Congress, for 
veterans, and their families. Today we take another step towards 
securing timely, predictable funding for the Veterans Health Care 
system. Our plan will create a transparent funding process that will 
yield sufficient, on-time funding that will enable VA to care for 
veterans more effectively.
  Historically, VA's health care system has been plagued by 
underfunding. Only a few years ago, VA reported a shortfall of over $1 
billion dollars. VA has had to come back to Congress repeatedly to get 
supplementary funding for health care costs. Fortunately, in the past 
two years, we have begun to change course, by providing record-funding 
to meet the increased needs of veterans and their families.
  Even with sufficient funding, however, the money for VA has been 
provided late in 19 of the past 22 fiscal

[[Page 3804]]

years. Sometimes, the appropriations have come as late as February, 
when VA needed the funds to spend in the preceding October.
  Funding levels and the timing of funding depend on the federal 
appropriations process--a process vulnerable to partisan posturing and 
last minute changes.
  This means that the largest health care system in the country--to 
which millions of wounded and indigent veterans turn to for care--does 
not know what funds it will receive, when it will be funded, or, in 
reality, whether vital programs will receive funding at all. This is no 
way to finance a national health care system with such a sacred 
obligation.
  Today we suggest a better option. I am proud to introduce the Senate-
version of the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform Act. This bill would 
require that veterans' health care be funded one-year in advance of the 
regular appropriations process.
  Unlike Medicare and Medicaid, veterans' health care would not be 
funded as an entitlement: Congress would still review and manage 
funding, as necessary, so as to maintain oversight.
  By knowing what funding they will receive one year in advance, VA 
would be able to plan more efficiently, and better use taxpayer dollars 
to care for veterans.
  In addition to improving timeliness, this bill will deliver a more 
transparent funding process. A GAO audit and public report to Congress 
on VA funding would be provided annually.
  I am proud to join a number of our nation's leading veterans' 
organizations, and a bipartisan team of supporters from the House and 
Senate in calling for this bill's passage. Joining me as cosponsors on 
this bill are Senators Snowe, Johnson, Rockefeller, Sanders, Tester, 
Begich, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, 
Murkowski, Stabenow, Thune, Vitter, and Mr. Schumer.
  Now is the time to secure timely, predictable veterans' health care 
funding. Mr. President, and 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 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 423

       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 ``Veterans Health Care Budget 
     Reform and Transparency Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Title 38, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs to furnish hospital and domiciliary care, 
     medical services, nursing home care, and related services to 
     eligible and enrolled veterans, but only to the extent that 
     appropriated resources and facilities are available for such 
     purposes.
       (2) For 19 of the past 22 fiscal years, funds have not been 
     appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     provision of health care as of the commencement of the new 
     fiscal year, causing the Department great challenges in 
     planning and managing care for enrolled veterans, to the 
     detriment of veterans.
       (3) The cumulative effect of insufficient, late, and 
     unpredictable funding for the Department for health care 
     endangers the viability of the health care system of the 
     Department and impairs the specialized health care resources 
     the Department requires to maintain and improve the health of 
     sick and disabled veterans.
       (4) Appropriations for the health care programs of the 
     Department have too often proven insufficient over the past 
     decade, requiring the Secretary to ration health care and 
     Congress to approve supplemental appropriations for those 
     programs.
       (5) Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding 
     would ensure the Government meets its obligation to provide 
     health care to sick and disabled veterans and ensure that all 
     veterans enrolled for health care through the Department have 
     ready access to timely and high quality care.
       (6) Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding 
     would allow the Department to properly plan for and meet the 
     needs of veterans.

     SEC. 3. TWO-FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL 
                   CARE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) Two-Fiscal Year Budget Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 113 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 113A. Two-fiscal year budget authority for certain 
       medical care accounts

       ``(a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2011, new 
     discretionary budget authority provided in an appropriations 
     Act for the appropriations accounts of the Department 
     specified in subsection (b) shall be made available for the 
     fiscal year involved, and shall include new discretionary 
     budget authority for such appropriations accounts that first 
     become available for the first fiscal year after such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(b) Medical Care Accounts.--The medical care accounts of 
     the Department specified in this subsection are the medical 
     care accounts of the Veterans Health Administration as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Medical Services.
       ``(2) Medical Support and Compliance.
       ``(3) Medical Facilities.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 113 the following new 
     item:

``113A. Two-fiscal year budget authority for certain medical care 
              accounts.''.

     SEC. 4. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES STUDY ON 
                   ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY OF BASELINE MODEL 
                   PROJECTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS FOR HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Study of Adequacy and Accuracy of Baseline Model 
     Projections.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the adequacy and accuracy of the 
     budget projections made by the Enrollee Health Care 
     Projection Model, its equivalent, or other methodologies, as 
     utilized for the purpose of estimating and projecting health 
     care expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Model'') with respect to 
     the fiscal year involved and the subsequent four fiscal 
     years.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the date of each year in 
     2011, 2012, and 2013, on which the President submits the 
     budget request for the next fiscal year under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and to the 
     Secretary a report.
       (2) Elements.--Each report under this paragraph shall 
     include, for the fiscal year beginning in the year in which 
     such report is submitted, the following:
       (A) A statement whether the amount requested in the budget 
     of the President for expenditures of the Department for 
     health care in such fiscal year is consistent with 
     anticipated expenditures of the Department for health care in 
     such fiscal year as determined utilizing the Model.
       (B) The basis for such statement.
       (C) Such additional information as the Comptroller General 
     determines appropriate.
       (3) Availability to the public.--Each report submitted 
     under this subsection shall also be made available to the 
     public.
       (4) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Appropriations, 
     and the Budget of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Appropriations, 
     and the Budget of the House of Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cardin, 
        Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown, Mr. Menendez, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, 
        and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 424. 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, I am proud to reintroduce the Uniting 
American Families Act. This legislation will allow U.S. citizens and 
legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex 
partners to come to the United States under our family immigration 
system. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Kerry, Schumer, Feingold, Wyden, 
Cardin, Menendez, Murray, Brown, Akaka, and Lautenberg for their 
support of this legislation. I hope that the Senate will act to 
demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law by 
passing this measure.
  I am also grateful that Congressman Nadler is introducing this same 
measure in the House of Representatives.

[[Page 3805]]

Congressman Nadler has been a steady champion of this legislation, and 
I commend his efforts.
  When the marker for the Senate's comprehensive immigration 
legislation was introduced at the beginning of this Congress, I said 
that among the changes needed in our immigration laws is equality for 
gay and lesbian Americans. The burdens and benefits of the laws created 
by the elected officials who represent all Americans should be shared 
equally, and without discrimination. With an historic election behind 
us, and the promise of a more just, peaceful, and prosperous world 
ahead of us, let us begin to break down the barriers that still remain 
for so many American citizens.
  Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American 
citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which 
accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted 
annually by the United States. As a result, gay Americans who are in 
this situation must either live apart from their partners, or leave the 
country if they want to live with them legally and permanently. 
According to the most recent census, there are approximately 35,000 bi-
national, same-sex couples living in the United States. It is all but 
certain that many of these couples will eventually be forced to make a 
choice with which no American should be faced--to choose between the 
country they love and the person they love.
  Some have expressed concern that providing this equality in our 
immigration law will lead to more immigration fraud. At best these 
concerns are misguided, and at worst they are a pretext for 
discrimination. This bill retains strong protections against fraud 
already in immigration law. To qualify as a permanent partner, 
petitioners must prove that they are at least 18-years-old and are in a 
committed, financially interdependent relationship with another adult 
in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment. They must also 
prove that they are not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, 
anyone other than that person, and are unable to contract with that 
person in a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. Proof could include sworn affidavits from friends and family and 
documentation of financial interdependence. Penalties for fraud would 
be the same as penalties for marriage fraud--up to five years in prison 
and $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for 
the foreign partner. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation 
should play no role in guarding against those who seek to abuse our 
immigration laws.
  Like many people across the country, there are Vermonters whose 
partners are foreign nationals and who feel abandoned by our laws in 
this area: Vermonters like Gordon Stewart who has come to talk to me 
about the unfairness of our current laws, or a committed, loving couple 
of 24 years in Brattleboro, VT, who travel back and forth between 
Vermont and England, and who wish nothing more than to be able to be 
together in the United States. This bill would allow them, and other 
gay and lesbian Americans throughout our Nation who have felt that our 
immigration laws are discriminatory, to be a fuller part of our 
society. The promotion of family unity has long been part of Federal 
immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all 
Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones.
  The idea that immigration benefits should be extended to same-sex 
couples is not a novel one. Many nations have come to recognize that 
their respective immigration laws should respect family unity, 
regardless of a person's sexual orientation. Indeed, 16 of our closest 
allies--Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South 
Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom--recognize same-sex couples for 
immigration purposes.
  I would ask all Senators to take heed of what my friend, Congressman 
John Lewis has said about discrimination against gay and lesbian 
Americans, when he wrote in 2003: ``Rather than divide and 
discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all 
one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American 
family. Let us recognize that the gay people living in our house share 
the same hopes, troubles, and dreams. It's time we treated them as 
equals, as family.'' Congressman Lewis is right. I hope all Senators 
will join me in supporting equality for all Americans and their loved 
ones.
  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 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 424

       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 2009''.
       (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. Application of family unity provisions to permanent partners 
              of certain LIFE Act beneficiaries.
Sec. 21. 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,'';

[[Page 3806]]

       (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,'';
       (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;
       (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, '' after
       (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'';
       (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'';

       (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)--

[[Page 3807]]

       (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,''.

     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. 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. 21. 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 Mr. BROWN:
  S. 425. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for the establishment of a traceability system for food, to 
amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspections 
Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act to provide for improved public health and food safety 
through enhanced enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, recent events involving E. coli- and 
salmonella-tainted foods demonstrate once again that our country's food 
inspection, tracking, and safety system is unable to adequately protect 
American consumers. At a time when too many Ohioans are struggling to 
put food on their tables, it is simply unacceptable that they also have 
to worry about the safety of that food.
  The most recent food-borne illness outbreak was identified as a 
salmonella contamination linked on January 12, 2009 to the Peanut 
Corporation of America's, PCA, plant in Blakely, GA. Since October of 
last year, this salmonella outbreak has sickened 600 people in 43 
states. More an 1,900 products have been recalled--representing one of 
the largest food recalls in our Nation's history. Yesterday, the 
nationwide death toll rose to nine. Ohio has reported 92 cases linked 
to this outbreak and two deaths, including this week's death of a 
Medina woman.
  Unfortunately, the current salmonella outbreak is not the only food-
borne illness outbreak to have plagued our Nation in recent years. Just 
last year, Nebraska beef, an Omaha slaughterhouse, issued a recall of 
5.3 million pounds of meat after widespread reports indicated that its 
meat was tainted with the sometimes-deadly strain of E. coli 0157:H7 
bacteria. Health officials confirmed that 21 Ohioans, and 45 people in 
total, were made ill by this outbreak.

[[Page 3808]]

  The current salmonella outbreak--taken alone--is a tragedy. The 
current salmonella outbreak--taken in combination with recent beef, 
spinach, and jalapeno pepper disease outbreaks, which have sickened and 
killed many--is evidence of a complete break-down in our nation's food 
safety system.
  More can--and must--be done to improve the safety of our food supply. 
It is for this reason that I am introducing legislation today to 
address some of the major problems plaguing the Food and Drug 
Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, the 
Federal agencies tasked with overseeing and protecting our nation's 
food supply.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Food Safety and Tracking 
Improvement Act, closely mirrors legislation that I introduced in the 
110th Congress, and would give the Federal Government the authority it 
needs to protect American consumers. It would give the Government the 
authority to recall tainted food and the tools to track the source of 
food outbreaks. Most importantly, it would save lives by ensuring a 
swift and thorough Federal response to contamination outbreaks.
  I think most Americans would be alarmed to learn that the. Federal 
government does not currently have the authority to issue a mandatory 
recall of contaminated food. Instead, America's food safety system 
relies on voluntary recalls and self-policing by industry. The top 
priority for both USDA and FDA should be to protect the public's 
health--a mission that will sometimes require swift and decisive action 
that, let's face it, may not be to industry's liking.
  In the most recent outbreak, PCA was identified as the source of the 
salmonella outbreak on January 12, 2009. While PCA issued a voluntary 
recall of a limited number of peanut butter products the next day, it 
wasn't until 16 days later that PCA expanded its recall to encompass 
all peanut and peanut products processed at its Georgia facility.
  In the Nebraska Beef case, had USDA been able to issue a mandatory 
recall once it became clear that consumers' safety was at risk, unsafe 
food would have been taken off of the shelves quicker and fewer 
citizens would have purchased and consumed the contaminated meat.
  We will never know how many more people consumed dangerous foods in 
the 16 days that PCA kept its products on the market, or in the weeks 
that Nebraska Beef decided to keep selling its products. But we do know 
that allowing private companies to unilaterally decide whether or not 
to recall their products is not in the best interest of our country. We 
must provide the relevant Federal agencies with mandatory recall 
authority so that they can act swiftly and efficiently to ensure that 
the public's safety is not compromised.
  It is vital that FDA have the authority to remove dangerous products 
from grocery store shelves, from school cafeterias, and from nursing 
home dinner trays as soon as regulators believe a threat exists. It is 
also vital that we establish a Federal program to allow for quick and 
accurate tracing of tainted food back to the source of the problem. If 
the United States Postal Service can track a package from my office in 
Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same 
for food products.
  My legislation would provide $40 million over three years for the FDA 
to set up a national traceability system for all food under its 
jurisdiction. This system would allow the Federal government to quickly 
identify the origin of contaminated food and would be developed by an 
Advisory Committee comprised of consumer advocates, industry leaders, 
and relevant representatives from FDA and USDA. The Committee would 
determine which tracking mechanisms, such as tracking numbers, 
electronic barcodes, and Federal databases, should be employed to 
protect consumers.
  I have partnered in these initiatives with Representative Diana 
DeGette, a close colleague of mine in the House, who has long been an 
advocate of providing our food safety regulators with these much-needed 
powers.
  The time to reform our Nation's food safety system is now. We cannot 
wait for another peanut or beef or spinach disaster. It is the 
responsibility of FDA and USDA to protect our nation's food supply and 
it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to ensure that 
these agencies have the tools and authority they need to do their job. 
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of the Food Safety 
and Tracking Improvement Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 426. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide for progressive indexing and longevity indexing of Social 
Security old-age insurance benefits for newly retired and aged 
surviving spouses to ensure the future solvency of the Social Security 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are awaiting the conference report on 
the stimulus package. The papers and the airwaves are full of the fact 
that this will be the largest expenditure we have made in peacetime 
perhaps in our history.
  I think it well, as we wait for the details of the package, for us to 
pause for a moment and take a longer look, beyond the recession, beyond 
the financial circumstances we are facing at the moment, and look down 
the road at what we are facing as a nation as a whole.
  So I am going to make a historic pattern today and then introduce, at 
the end, a bill I believe is necessary for us to deal with our 
financial problems. Let's go back a moment in history to the year 1966. 
Why do I pick 1966? Because that was the year we significantly expanded 
the entitlement spending in the United States. That was the year we 
adopted Medicare as a Federal program.
  As you see from the chart, at that time the mandatory spending 
constituted 26 percent of the budget. By ``mandatory,'' I mean spending 
that we have to do. People are entitled to receive that money whether 
we have the money or not; it is mandatory under the law.
  The largest portion of the mandatory spending in 1966 was Social 
Security.
  We were paying roughly 7 percent of our budget for interest. We had 
nondefense discretionary spending which was 23 percent. The big item, 
the big ticket item that dominated the budget in 1966 was defense. It 
constituted 44 percent of Federal spending in 1966.
  Let's see what has happened since that time. Let's see where we are 
today. In fiscal 2008, this is where we are. The mandatory spending has 
grown from 26 percent to 54 percent. Interest costs are roughly the 
same. They were 7 percent; now they are 8. Nondiscretionary spending 
has shrunk to 17 percent. Defense discretionary, even though we are in 
a wartime, is 21 percent. It is clear the mandatory spending is taking 
over control of the Federal budget. And interest costs, of course, are 
mandatory. We owe those interest costs.
  If you add the two together, 54 and 8, you get 62 percent of the 
Federal budget beyond the control of Congress. That is, when we pass 
the appropriations bills, when we make our decisions what to spend 
money for, we are spending money in the minority; whereas, 62 percent 
majority is out of our control. When you take away the defense spending 
and assume that has a semimandatory aspect to it and put defense 
spending in the mix, that means the Congress only has control of 17 
percent of the budget, an amazing change in the roughly 40 years from 
1966 until today.
  What does the future look like? I must make the point that every 
projection we make around here is wrong. Every projection is an 
educated guess. But the educated guess of what will happen 10 years 
from now is that mandatory spending will have grown to 61 percent and 
interest costs to 10 percent. That is 71. The Congressional Budget 
Office won't make a guess as to the divide between defense and 
nondefense discretionary spending. So all discretionary spending will 
be 29 percent, if we divide it in half, as it has historically been. 
That means the Congress, just 10 years from now, will only

[[Page 3809]]

control 10 percent of the Federal budget. All the rest of it will be on 
automatic pilot. That is a startling thing to look forward to.
  So as we talk about the stimulus package, we need to pause and pay a 
little attention to the entitlement spending that will go on and the 
kind of spending that will be built up, and we are adding to that with 
this stimulus.
  Here it is in the projections of what it will be. It constitutes a 
wave. Indeed, it has been referred to almost as a tsunami of spending. 
It is broken down into the three primary sources of mandatory spending, 
the three biggest entitlements. At the bottom is the one that is the 
biggest now, and that is Social Security. But Social Security does not 
grow as fast as the next one, which is Medicare. And then on top of 
that is Medicaid. One can see this tsunami of spending will take our 
mandatory spending, which at the moment is less than 10 percent of GDP, 
up to more than 20 percent of GDP.
  Let me show another chart that illustrates the same point in a 
slightly different way. You have the same entitlements. We have added 
in this chart discretionary spending. The solid line across is the 
average revenue of the Federal Government. It is recorded in percentage 
of GDP. We have historically had a revenue average of 18.4 percent of 
GDP. As we can see in 2007, the expenditures were slightly above that 
line. The largest portion of the expenditure was the combination of 
defense and nondefense discretionary spending. But the projection, as 
you go out, you see that at some point the entitlements will take over 
every dime we take in. The largest portion of it will be Medicare. 
Social Security will still be there. Medicaid will still be there. 
Discretionary spending will shrink even further as a percentage of what 
we are dealing with.
  Why is this happening? Is this some kind of a plot that somebody is 
involved in? No. This is a result of the demographic changes that are 
occurring in our country. This chart summarizes it with the headline: 
``Americans Are Getting Older.''
  If you go back to 1950, the percentage of Americans who were age 65 
or older was about 7 percent. It grew, the percentage, at a relatively 
slow level and then actually began to shrink. Why did it begin to 
shrink, the percentage of Americans 65 and over? This is a reflection 
of the Great Depression. People had fewer children in the Great 
Depression. So it follows that 65 years later, there were fewer people 
who were of retirement age. But following the Great Depression, you had 
the Second World War and then, when people came home from war, you had 
what historians refer to as the baby boom. All of those who came as a 
consequence of that are called the boomers.
  Starting in 2008, which is now history, the line started upward in a 
dramatic fashion. In the next 20 years, we are going to see something 
happen that has never happened in American history. In the next 20 
years, the percentage of Americans who are over 65 is going to double. 
That is what is driving all the numbers I put up before, all the 
changes in entitlement spending. These people are already born. This is 
not a projection that depends on guesses. This is something we can be 
sure of because the demographics of these folks are already there.
  Now the projection is that 20 years from now, when the baby boomers 
finish retiring, the rate of increase will slow down again and go back 
to the somewhat gentle rate it was before we got into this situation. 
But that is the reality we are dealing with. In the next 20 years, the 
percentage of Americans who are 65 or over is going to double.
  Let's look at some of the detail behind these demographics. Seniors 
are living longer. Not only are we going to get more of them, but they 
are living longer. That is why that trend is not going to turn down 
once the baby boomers have been absorbed. If you go back to 1940, after 
you reached 65 in 1940, if you were a male, your life expectancy was 
another 12 years, female 13. The chart shows how it has changed. Now if 
you are male and you reach 65, your life expectancy is another 16 
years. If you are female, it is another 19 years. And roughly a short 
decade away, a male will go to 18 and female to 21. That means all the 
entitlement programs geared toward our senior citizens are going to be 
tapped into for many more years than was the case when they were put in 
place.
  If we go back to the history of Social Security, we realize Social 
Security was something of a lottery. When Social Security started in 
the 1930s, roughly half of American workers did not survive until they 
were 65. So it was a lottery with 100 percent of the people paying in 
and only 50 percent taking anything out. Those who paid in got nothing 
for having done so. Those who survived to 65 got the benefit of their 
survival. Now you see they are living longer today, something like 75 
or 80 percent of workers who join the workforce at age 20 are still 
alive at 65, so the lottery doesn't work anymore. Instead of half the 
people paying into the lottery, not getting anything out, you have more 
than three-quarters of the people who pay into the lottery getting 
something out. Then, once they get it, they get it for longer. The life 
expectancy of Americans is going up, as was shown in the last chart. 
This shows the trend lines for male and female.
  Again, in 1940, the life expectancy of Americans who had reached 65 
was, for males, about 75. When we get out into the future, it will be 
86. Put those two facts together. More people survive to 65 and, then, 
more people who get into the pool over 65 stay there for more years.
  All this means that the financial structure of Social Security is 
simply unsustainable. Social Security cannot deal with these 
demographic changes. This is not a Republican plot or a Democratic 
plot. This is the demographics of the reality of the fact that 
Americans are healthier, living longer, and surviving to older age. So 
you get this reaction to the Social Security situation.
  We go to the next chart that shows how Social Security works, in 
terms of the lottery I was discussing. In 1945, the program was still 
in its infancy. So this is a bit of a distortion. There were 42 people 
working and paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out. 
As the program matured and more and more of the workers retired, this 
number very appropriately came down. By 1950, there were still 17 
workers paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out. 
Today there are three workers paying into the program for every one 
drawing out. With the demographic realities I described in the previous 
charts, we are looking at a time when there will be two workers for 
every retiree. That means, if the retiree is going to take out $1,000 a 
month, each worker has to be putting in $500 a month in order to make 
that happen and for a long period of time. This is how we have dealt 
with this demographic change throughout our history. We have dealt with 
it by raising taxes. Every step along the way, as the number of workers 
to retirees has gone down, the amount of taxes every worker pays has 
gone up.
  Here is the history of the payroll tax increases: In 1937, you paid 
taxes on $3,000. That was it. Now it is $106,000. It has gone up and up 
all the way through.
  This is unsustainable. You cannot continue to deal with the 
demographic changes in Social Security by simply ratcheting up the 
taxes. You have to do something to stabilize Social Security in a way 
that it will be there for our children and our grandchildren.
  There is a reported survey--I have seen it many places, but I have 
never seen the source--that says a poll shows that among the young 
people in America, more believe in the existence of UFOs than believe 
Social Security will be available for them when they retire. I have 
grandmothers come up to me spontaneously on the streets in Utah and 
tell me how concerned they are their children and grandchildren will 
not have Social Security. I have people entering the workforce who come 
to me and say: Senator, my biggest question is, Will Social Security be 
there for me? And, increasingly, people are sure it is not.
  The legislation I introduce today is geared to make sure Social 
Security

[[Page 3810]]

will be there for our children and our grandchildren and that it will 
be there at roughly the same level it is for us; that is, they will not 
have to accept significantly less than we accept in order to make this 
program work.
  How do we do that in the face of this demographic challenge? How is 
that possible? Well, one of our colleagues in the Senate for many 
years, Senator Pat Moynihan of New York, had the answer. Senator 
Moynihan looked back on how Social Security benefits were calculated, 
and he said: We calculate the increase in Social Security benefits on 
the wrong base. I do not want to get too technical, but the term that 
applies is ``wage-based'' increases for cost of living. Senator 
Moynihan pointed out the cost of living is not going up as rapidly as 
wages are. So if we would just adjust the base from wage base to cost-
of-living base, a true cost-of-living base--that means we would slow 
down the rate of growth in benefits, and in slowing down the rate of 
growth in benefits in that fashion, we would solve the problem. It 
would become solvent.
  That is fine. But what if you are someone who depends upon Social 
Security as your sole source of retirement? It was never intended that 
would be the case when it was put in place, but it has become that way 
for too many Americans. If they were to give up the benefit that comes 
from an overpayment--that is the form of wage-based adjustments--to go 
to the true payment of cost of increasing, which is the cost of the 
Consumer Price Index, it would hurt them. They would give up 
significant benefits. On the other hand, if you look at people such as 
Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey, they do not really need to have 
Social Security go beyond the true increase in cost of living.
  So the solution is to say, for those who are at the bottom of the 
economic ladder, we keep Social Security benefits exactly as they are. 
For Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey and those who are at the exact top 
end of the economic ladder, we take Senator Moynihan's idea and we put 
it in place and say: You will have to struggle by with a Social 
Security plan based on the actual increase in cost of living rather 
than an inflated increase in cost of living.
  What about those of us who are in between, the people at the bottom 
and the people at the very top? For those of us who fall in between 
those two areas, we get a mix, a blend, if you will, of wage base or 
cost-of-living base. It is called progressive indexing. All of the 
details are available in hearings that have been held on this subject 
which I chaired when I was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and 
in other publications that have addressed this question.
  What will this do to the actual benefits of the people in Social 
Security? We have asked the Social Security Administration to tell us. 
Now, again, these are projections, and as projections, they are subject 
to some kind of challenge. But they are the best analysis that people 
can make.
  We start out with people who are currently 55; that is, only 10 years 
away from the 65 retirement date, although Social Security, by the time 
they get there, will be at 67. But what is going to happen to them 
under the bill I am introducing?
  As shown on this chart, the dark bar is what a 2009 retiree will get. 
The red bar is what a 2019 retiree will get. These are in constant 
dollars; that is, an adjustment has been made for inflation. You see in 
every instance, the 2019 retiree will get more than the 2009 retiree.
  Now, this is for the low earner. These are the people who are at the 
bottom third of our economic structure. Then the medium earner, and the 
high earner. So you see, in every case, people are made whole and 
protected.
  This last chart is for the max earner, the maximum earner, who, quite 
frankly, probably does not exist. That would assume that somebody 
entered the workforce at age 20, earned $106,000 a year the first year, 
and continued to earn that level going on up through his entire career. 
The maximum he could possibly draw from Social Security: that would be 
that one.
  But 82 percent of Americans fall in these two categories. So for 
someone age 55, under this bill, they come out just fine. They have 
nothing they should worry about.
  Well, what about somebody who is 45, a little bit younger? What 
happens to them? Again, these are the estimates made by the Social 
Security Administration. Once again, the low earners, they do better 
under the Bennett plan. The medium earners, they do better under the 
Bennett plan. The high earners, virtually the same under the Bennett 
plan.
  We can make the statement that we are going to hold everybody 
harmless. We will adjust Social Security in a way that makes it 
solvent, while at the same time preserving the same level of benefits 
we have for those of us who are currently drawing Social Security 
benefits, and we can see the same level of benefits would be available 
to those who come after us.
  We will reach out all the way to 2075 and see what the estimates are 
from the Social Security Administration. These are people who will be 
born in 2010. It is a little hard to make a projection as to how much 
money they will have when they are not alive yet, but the projections 
are made.
  Once again, under the bill I am introducing today, in 2075, the 
people at the bottom will do substantially better comparing today's 
benefit of $800 to the potential benefit of nearly $1,300 because they 
are the ones who are held harmless in the way Social Security benefits 
are currently calculated. So they will get a significant position of 
significantly greater benefit than they do under current law. The 
medium earner--well, they also will do better. The high earner also 
will do better. Even the max earner will come out essentially the same.
  Now, I cannot guarantee these numbers. You cannot guarantee with any 
certainty what the numbers are going to be in 2075. But the fact is 
that the Social Security Administration, looking over a past version of 
this bill I have introduced, has said everyone can look forward with 
some certainty--this is my description of it, not their words--everyone 
can look forward with some certainty to seeing that his or her Social 
Security benefits will be roughly the same as the benefits that are 
being paid to retirees today, and the system will be solvent, not 
requiring any increase in taxes throughout the life of the system.
  We have had a lot of debates about Social Security, and we have had a 
lot of proposals about Social Security. To my knowledge, this is the 
only one that can say the two things I have just said; that is, that 
everybody's benefit, wherever they fall on the economic continuum, will 
be held at roughly the same level as today's benefit--in the case of 
the low earners, substantially better--and it can be done without 
raising any taxes. That is why we call this the Social Security 
Solvency Act.
  Let me go back to the charts I put up in the beginning to stress once 
again the importance of bringing entitlements under control.
  As shown on this chart, this is where we were in 1966 before 
entitlements started to get out of control. We in the Congress 
controlled 23 percent of the budget in nondefense discretionary 
spending and 44 percent of the budget in defense spending. So we 
controlled the majority. Today, we have shrunk that to the point where 
we control only 17 percent of the Federal budget, with 21 percent for 
defense spending, and the mandatory and interest costs have grown to a 
majority--a significant majority. Looking ahead just 10 years, if we do 
not do something about the entitlements, the mandatory spending will be 
61 percent, 71 percent when you add interest costs. If you divide 
defense and nondefense in this historic pattern, we will only have 15 
percent of the entire Federal budget under our control for nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  We are talking about the largest single expenditure in our peacetime 
history. As we adopt it, we should do so against the backdrop of what 
we are looking at in mandatory spending down the road and realize if we 
are going to be able to afford this stimulus package, we have to have 
the courage to tackle mandatory spending at the same time.

[[Page 3811]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I simply want 
to say to Senator Bennett, my partner lo these many years in the 
bipartisan effort to fix health care, how much I appreciate his 
leadership on the Social Security issue.
  I think everybody understands what the demographics are all about. In 
fact, the demographics on Social Security are very similar to the 
demographics on health care. Yet Senator Bennett has been out there 
prosecuting the case of trying to bring the Senate together for a 
bipartisan approach on Social Security, just as we have sought to do on 
health care.
  I want to let the Senator from Utah know how much I am looking 
forward to working with him on this issue. I think he knows there are a 
number of us who believe this is going to take a bipartisan effort. 
Like most of the big issues, if you are going to get an enduring 
reform, bring the country together, you have to take the pursuit that 
Senator Bennett has followed, which is to do your homework and get the 
financial underpinnings in place.
  I commend my colleague for all his effort to zero the attention of 
the Senate in on the Social Security question. I am looking forward to 
working with him in partnership on this issue as well as continuing our 
health care effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Oregon for his kind words. He was not here when I put up one chart 
which has now been taken away that showed the tsunami of entitlement 
spending, consisting of a band of three programs. The largest portion 
of that tsunami band was made up of health care spending. I will 
confess to having taken the easy route. Social Security is the easiest 
one to fix because we can make the kinds of changes I described here 
that go back to the effort started by Senator Moynihan.
  Here is the chart. We can see Social Security is the easy one and 
eventually the small one. Medicare and Medicaid are the ones that are 
going to overwhelm us. They are the most difficult ones to fix.
  So I am honored to have the Senator from Oregon say what he has to 
say because he has been the leader in recognizing that this challenge; 
that is, the challenge of dealing with the health care costs, is the 
tougher challenge, but, as with most tough challenges, it is also the 
one that will produce the biggest reward. It is where the biggest 
opportunity lies.
  As I have said many times and repeated here on the floor of the 
Senate, one of the things I realized while working with the Senator 
from Oregon is that the best way to get all of these costs under 
control and turn these lines downward is to get quality going in our 
health care program. The bill I have had the honor to cosponsor, along 
with the Senator from Oregon, is focused on getting proper quality into 
our health care system.
  If the Senator from Oregon is successful, with whatever help I can 
give him along with those others who have joined us, he will have made 
a significant contribution to our country, not only in terms of the 
benefits that come from having done health care right but from the 
economic impact of having done health care right. He will have made it 
possible for us to even consider such expenditures as a target in the 
stimulus package because this is the backdrop against which we are 
going to have to pay for those. So I thank the Senator from Oregon for 
his kind words, but I thank him even more for his valiant effort and 
his leadership on the whole issue of trying to deal with the health 
care challenge.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would close this discussion with Senator 
Bennett by saying that I think, having listened to his comments with 
respect to Social Security and knowing of our work together on health 
care, if anything, we have seen during this last couple of weeks of 
discussion about the economic stimulus how important it is going to be 
to bring the Senate together in the months ahead in a bipartisan way to 
tackle these most significant economic questions. You are not going to 
fix Social Security and you are not going to fix health care on a 
narrowly partisan approach. The Senator has made that clear with the 
ideas he has advanced on Social Security.
  It is a pleasure to team up with the Senator on health care. I look 
forward to joining with him in following up on the Social Security 
proposal he has made this afternoon. I thank him for his work.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I again stress how grateful I am to the 
Senator for his leadership and how happy I am to be one of his cadre of 
loyal followers on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 429. A bill to ensure the safety of imported food products for the 
citizens of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
colleague Senator Grassley, the EAT SAFE Act of 2009. Our bill is an 
important piece of foodsafety legislation that brings common sense 
solutions to give Americans peace of mind that the foods they eat and 
give their families is safe to consume.
  We continue to see major problems in our food safety systems. Most 
recently, there was both contaminated salsa and a massive peanut butter 
recall. Two years ago, there was the major recall of animal feed and 
pet food that contained contaminated Chinese gluten. These examples 
highlight the need for action to ensure the safety of both domestic and 
foreign food products. Ensuring the safety of food products and food 
ingredients brought into this country from other nations has taken on a 
greater urgency.
  A report issued in September 2007 by the Interagency Working Group on 
Import Safety stated that, ``aspects of our present import system must 
be strengthened to promote security, safety, and trade for the benefit 
of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we are reintroducing 
today is designed to address one of those critical aspects of the food 
and agricultural import system that, in the face of the mounting 
imported food safety crisis, has received little public focus. That 
issue is food and other agricultural products that are being smuggled 
into the United States.
  When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as 
something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of 
foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in 
their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of 
smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do 
address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products 
comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent 
U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain 
products from a particular country.
  The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals 
circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times 
smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the 
identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other 
times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the 
products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have 
previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is, 
presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain 
importation undetected.
  Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in 
the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and 
poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of 
avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a 
bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico 
contaminated with Hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China 
containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and 
agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and 
animals,

[[Page 3812]]

and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and security.
  The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying common-
sense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This 
legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring 
additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also 
authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland 
Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for 
Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women 
working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food 
and agricultural threats.
  In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT 
SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The 
legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA-
regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified 
by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers 
who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory 
sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection 
system.
  Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness 
of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring 
the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely 
and easily searchable manner.
  These commonsense measures are an important first step towards 
safeguarding American's food and agricultural supply and ensuring our 
Nation's health, economy, and security. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this 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. 429

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Ending 
     Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding America's Food for 
     Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Food safety training, personnel, and coordination.
Sec. 5. Reporting of smuggled food products.
Sec. 6. Civil penalties relating to illegally imported meat and poultry 
              products.
Sec. 7. Certification of food safety labs.
Sec. 8. Data sharing.
Sec. 9. Public notice regarding recalled food products.
Sec. 10. Foodborne illness education and outreach competitive grants 
              program.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the safety of the food supply of the United States is 
     vital to--
       (A) the health of the citizens of the United States;
       (B) the preservation of the confidence of those citizens in 
     the food supply of the United States; and
       (C) the success of the food sector of the United States 
     economy;
       (2) the United States has the safest food supply in the 
     world, and maintaining a secure domestic food supply is 
     imperative for the national security of the United States;
       (3) in a report published by the Government Accountability 
     Office in January 2007, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States described food safety oversight as 1 of the 29 high-
     risk program areas of the Federal Government; and
       (4) the task of preserving the safety of the food supply of 
     the United States is complicated by pressures relating to--
       (A) food products that are smuggled or imported into the 
     United States without being screened, monitored, or inspected 
     as required by law; and
       (B) the need to improve the enforcement of the United 
     States in reducing the quantity of food products that are--
       (i) smuggled into the United States; and
       (ii) imported into the United States without being 
     screened, monitored, or inspected as required by law.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Food and Drug Administration.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service.
       (3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (4) Food defense threat.--The term ``food defense threat'' 
     means any intentional contamination, including any disease, 
     pest, or poisonous agent, that could adversely affect the 
     safety of human or animal food products.
       (5) Smuggled food product.--The term ``smuggled food 
     product'' means a prohibited human or animal food product 
     that a person fraudulently brings into the United States.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 4. FOOD SAFETY TRAINING, PERSONNEL, AND COORDINATION.

       (a) Department.--
       (1) Training programs.--
       (A) Agricultural specialists.--
       (i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training 
     programs to educate each Federal employee who is employed in 
     a position described in section 421(g) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231(g)) on issues relating to 
     food safety and agroterrorism.
       (ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $1,700,000.
       (B) Cross-training of employees of united states customs 
     and border protection.--
       (i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training 
     programs to educate border patrol agents employed by the 
     United States Customs and Border Protection of the Department 
     of Homeland Security about identifying human, animal, and 
     plant health threats and referring the threats to the 
     appropriate agencies.
       (ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $4,800,000.
       (2) Illegal import detection personnel.--Subtitle G of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 263. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.

       ``(a) Additional Employees.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats: 
     Safeguarding America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 
     2009, the Secretary shall hire a sufficient number of 
     employees to increase the number of full-time field 
     investigators, import surveillance officers, support staff, 
     analysts, and compliance and enforcement experts employed by 
     the Food Safety and Inspection Service as of October 1, 2007, 
     by 100 employees, in order to--
       ``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
       ``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled human food 
     products from commerce; and
       ``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that 
     threaten the food supply.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.''.
       (b) Administration.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 418. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding 
     America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2009, the 
     Secretary shall hire a sufficient number of employees to 
     increase the number of full-time field investigators, import 
     surveillance officers, support staff, analysts, and 
     compliance and enforcement experts employed by the Food and 
     Drug Administration as of October 1, 2007, by 150 employees, 
     in order to--
       ``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
       ``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled food products from 
     commerce; and
       ``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that 
     threaten the food supply.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
       (c) Coordination of Federal Agencies.--Section 411(b) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 211(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Coordination of federal agencies.--The Commissioner 
     of United States Customs and Border Protection, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall conduct activities to 
     target, track, and inspect shipments that--
       ``(A) contain human and animal food products; and
       ``(B) are imported into the United States.''.

     SEC. 5. REPORTING OF SMUGGLED FOOD PRODUCTS.

       (a) Department.--
       (1) Public notification.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on 
     which the Department identifies a smuggled food product, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the public notification describing 
     the food product identified

[[Page 3813]]

     by the Department and, if available, the individual or entity 
     that smuggled the food product.
       (B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary shall 
     provide public notification under subparagraph (A) through--
       (i) a news release of the Department for each smuggled food 
     product identified by the Department;
       (ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the 
     website of the Department;
       (iii) the management of a periodically updated list that 
     contains a description of each individual or entity that 
     smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the Department 
     identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary shall 
     provide to the Department of Homeland Security notification 
     of the smuggled food product.
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) Public notification.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on 
     which the Administration identifies a smuggled food product, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide to 
     the public notification describing the smuggled food product 
     identified by the Administration and, if available, the 
     individual or entity that smuggled the food product.
       (B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall provide public notification 
     under subparagraph (A) through--
       (i) a press release of the Administration for each smuggled 
     food product identified by the Administration;
       (ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the 
     website of the Administration;
       (iii) the management of a periodically updated list that 
     contains a description of each individual or entity that 
     smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services under subparagraph (A); and
       (iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the Administration 
     identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall provide to the Department of 
     Homeland Security notification of the smuggled food product.

     SEC. 6. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO ILLEGALLY IMPORTED MEAT 
                   AND POULTRY PRODUCTS.

       (a) Meat Products.--Section 20(b) of the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 620(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Destruction; Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) Destruction.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--Each individual or entity that 
     fails to present each meat article that is the subject of the 
     importation of the individual or entity to an inspection 
     facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a 
     civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to 
     exceed $25,000 for each meat article that the individual or 
     entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
       (b) Poultry Products.--Section 12 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain 
     Sections.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
       (2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Failure to present poultry products at designated 
     inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails 
     to present each poultry product that is the subject of the 
     importation of the individual or entity to an inspection 
     facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a 
     civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to 
     exceed $25,000 for each poultry product that the individual 
     or entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
       (c) Egg Products.--Section 12 of the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1041) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain 
     Prohibited Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
       (2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Failure to present egg products at designated 
     inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails 
     to present each egg product that is the subject of the 
     importation of the individual or entity to an inspection 
     facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a 
     civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to 
     exceed $25,000 for each egg product that the individual or 
     entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.

     SEC. 7. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF TEST 
                   RESULTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by section 
     4(b), is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 419. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF 
                   TEST RESULTS.

       ``(a) Definition of Food Safety Lab.--In this section, the 
     term `food safety lab' means an establishment that conducts 
     testing, on behalf of an importer through a contract or other 
     arrangement, to ensure the safety of articles of food.
       ``(b) Certification Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A food safety lab shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application for certification. Upon review, the 
     Secretary may grant or deny certification to the food safety 
     lab.
       ``(2) Certification standards.--The Secretary shall 
     establish criteria and methodologies for the evaluation of 
     applications for certification submitted under paragraph (1). 
     Such criteria shall include the requirements that a food 
     safety lab--
       ``(A) be accredited as being in compliance with standards 
     set by the International Organization for Standardization;
       ``(B) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct an 
     inspection of the facilities of the food safety lab and the 
     procedures of such lab before making a certification 
     determination;
       ``(C) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct routine 
     audits of the facilities of the food safety lab to ensure 
     ongoing compliance with accreditation and certification 
     requirements;
       ``(D) submit with such application a fee established by the 
     Secretary in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of 
     application review, including inspection under subparagraph 
     (B); and
       ``(E) agree to submit to the Secretary, in accordance with 
     the process established under subsection (c), the results of 
     tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of an 
     importer.
       ``(c) Submission of Test Results.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a process by which a food safety lab certified 
     under this section shall submit to the Secretary the results 
     of all tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of 
     an importer.''.
       (b) Enforcement.--Section 303(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) An importer (as such term is used in section 419) 
     shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to 
     exceed $25,000 if such importer knowingly engages in the 
     falsification of test results submitted to the Secretary by a 
     food safety lab certified under section 419.
       ``(6) A food safety lab certified under section 419 shall 
     be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed 
     $25,000 for knowingly submitting to the Secretary false test 
     results under section 419.'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``paragraph (5)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (7)(A)'';
       (4) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking ``or 
     (4)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(4), (5), or 
     (6)'';
       (5) in paragraph (8), by striking ``paragraph (5)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (7)(A)''; and
       (6) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (6)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``paragraph (8)''.

     SEC. 8. DATA SHARING.

       (a) Department of Agriculture Memoranda of Understanding.--
     The Secretary shall ensure that the agencies within the 
     Department of Agriculture, including the Food Safety and 
     Inspection Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding to ensure the timely and 
     efficient sharing of all information collected by such 
     agencies related to foodborne pathogens, contaminants, and 
     illnesses.
       (b) Interagency Memorandum of Understanding.--The 
     Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, shall enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding between the agencies within the Department of 
     Agriculture, including those described in subsection (a), and 
     the agencies within the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure 
     the timely and efficient sharing of all information collected 
     by such agencies related to foodborne pathogens, 
     contaminants, and illnesses.

     SEC. 9. PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING RECALLED FOOD PRODUCTS.

       (a) Department.--
       (1) News releases regarding recalled food products.--
       (A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal 
     food product regulated by the Department is voluntarily 
     recalled, the Secretary shall provide to the public a news

[[Page 3814]]

     release describing the human or animal food product.
       (B) Contents.--Each news release described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and 
     animal food product regulated by the Department that is 
     voluntarily recalled.
       (2) Website.--The Secretary shall modify the website of the 
     Department to contain--
       (A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a 
     human or animal food product regulated by the Department is 
     voluntarily recalled, a news release describing the human or 
     animal food product;
       (B) if available, an image of each human and animal food 
     product that is the subject of a news release described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, a search engine that--
       (i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary; 
     and
       (ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate 
     each human and animal food product regulated by the 
     Department that is voluntarily recalled.
       (3) State-issued and industry press releases.--To meet the 
     requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary--
       (A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a 
     State; and
       (B) shall not provide to the public a press release issued 
     by a private industry entity in lieu of a press release 
     issued by the Federal Government or a State.
       (4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary may 
     not delegate, by contract or otherwise, the duty of the 
     Secretary--
       (A) to provide to the public a news release under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) to make any required modification to the website of the 
     Department under paragraph (2).
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) Press releases regarding recalled food products.--
       (A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal 
     food product regulated by the Administration is voluntarily 
     recalled, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     provide to the public a press release describing the human or 
     animal food product.
       (B) Contents.--Each press release described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and 
     animal food product regulated by the Administration that is 
     voluntarily recalled.
       (2) Website.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall modify the website of the Administration to contain--
       (A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a 
     human or animal food product regulated by the Administration 
     is voluntarily recalled a press release describing the human 
     or animal food product;
       (B) if available, an image of each human and animal food 
     product that is the subject of a press release described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, a search engine that--
       (i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services; and
       (ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate 
     each human and animal food product regulated by the 
     Administration that is voluntarily recalled.
       (3) State-issued and industry press releases.--For purposes 
     of meeting the requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services--
       (A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a 
     State; and
       (B) may not provide to the public a press release issued by 
     a private industry entity in lieu of a press release issued 
     by a State or the Federal Government.
       (4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services may not delegate, by contract or 
     otherwise, the duty of the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services--
       (A) to provide to the public a press release under 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) to make any required modification to the website of the 
     Administration under paragraph (2).

     SEC. 10. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH COMPETITIVE 
                   GRANTS PROGRAM.

       Title IV of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 is amended by adding after 
     section 412 (7 U.S.C. 7632) the following:

     ``SEC. 413. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 
                   COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
       ``(2) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
       ``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) the government of a State (including a political 
     subdivision of a State);
       ``(B) an educational institution;
       ``(C) a private for-profit organization;
       ``(D) a private non-profit organization; and
       ``(E) any other appropriate individual or entity, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary (acting through the 
     Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, 
     and Extension Service), in consultation with the 
     Administrator and the Commissioner, shall establish and 
     administer a competitive grant program to provide grants to 
     eligible entities to enable the eligible entities to carry 
     out educational outreach partnerships and programs to provide 
     to health providers, patients, and consumers information to 
     enable those individuals and entities--
       ``(1) to recognize--
       ``(A) foodborne illness as a serious public health issue; 
     and
       ``(B) each symptom of foodborne illness to ensure the 
     proper treatment of foodborne illness;
       ``(2) to understand--
       ``(A) the potential for contamination of human and animal 
     food products during each phase of the production of human 
     and animal food products; and
       ``(B) the importance of using techniques that help ensure 
     the safe handling of human and animal food products; and
       ``(3) to assess the risk of foodborne illness to ensure the 
     proper selection by consumers of human and animal food 
     products.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.

  Mr. GRASLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the EAT SAFE 
Act which I am once again cosponsoring with Senator Casey.
  It seems like all too often we have a new food safety problem. It 
might be contaminated food right here at home, or tainted goods coming 
in from other countries.
  Now, as everyone in this body knows, I am a family farmer. And I take 
pride in the food that I grow on my farm that helps to feed the world. 
I have never met a farmer who didn't want to produce safe food.
  Many of us in Congress are parents and grandparents. We are always 
looking at the foods we buy to stock our shelves because we know it 
will impact the health of our loved ones. And so, everyone in this body 
should have the same goal in protecting our food supply.
  That is why the senator from Pennsylvania and I have seen the 
importance of introducing a bipartisan food safety bill.
  As part of our national security, we require a safe and secure food 
supply. The importers of food into the U.S. have a duty to make sure 
what they supply is safe. At the same time, with trillions of dollars 
worth of products being imported into the U.S. every year, we need to 
make sure that our inspectors can handle the workload.
  The EAT SAFE Act puts an emphasis on training and personnel. We 
authorize funding for both the Food and Drug Administration and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to hire additional personnel to detect 
and track smuggled food and a agricultural products. The bill would 
also crosstrain Department of Homeland Security border patrol agents 
and agricultural specialists on food safety since they are our first 
line of defense to imported threats.
  In addition, our bill requires private laboratories conducting tests 
on FDA-regulated products on behalf of importers, to apply for and be 
certified by FDA. It directs FDA to develop a determination, 
certification, and audit process for these private laboratories, and 
authorizes FDA to collect user fees to cover certification costs. 
Finally, it imposes civil penalties for laboratories and importers who 
knowingly falsify laboratory sampling results and for importers who 
circumvent the USDA import reinspection system.
  Consumer confidence in America's food supply has always been high. 
But as each week passes with a recall on something in our fridges and 
pantries, that consumer confidence is slipping.
  I believe this bill helps alleviate the threats from imported 
products and puts reliability into private lab testing. FDA does not 
have the resources as we have seen with the recent peanut products 
recall to fully monitor all the threats against our food supply.
  I hope the introduction of this bill will get the seeds planted on 
what is sure to be a comprehensive look at our Nation's food system. I 
urge my colleagues to join Senator Casey and me and support this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 430. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act

[[Page 3815]]

of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, EDA. EDA works 
with partners in economically distressed communities to create wealth 
and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to 
attract private investment and encourage long-term economic growth. 
Authorization of EDA's programs expired on September 30, 2008. I 
originally introduced this bill in July 2008 so that we could avert 
this lapse in authorization. Unfortunately, my bill was never enacted, 
so I am reintroducing it today.
  Unlike the majority of the spending in the so-called ``stimulus'' 
bill passed by the Senate earlier this week, EDA investments actually 
provide economic benefits. In fact, studies show that EDA uses federal 
dollars efficiently and effectively, creating and retaining long-term 
jobs at an average cost that is among the lowest in government. Knowing 
that, I was pleased to see some funding for EDA included in that 
massive spending bill; I only wish more of that bill had been 
legitimate economic stimulus.
  Last year, I was disappointed to see an Obama campaign document refer 
to EDA as wasteful and ineffective government spending and propose 
cutbacks in funding for the agency. While I, too, am committed to 
eliminating wasteful spending, I couldn't disagree more with that 
characterization of EDA.
  In my home State of Oklahoma, for example, EDA has worked long and 
hard with many communities in need to bring in private capital 
investment and jobs. Durant, Clinton, Oklahoma City, Seminole, Miami 
and Elgin are just some of the Oklahoma communities that have made good 
use of EDA assistance. In fact, over the past six years, EDA grants 
awarded in my home state have resulted in more than 9,000 jobs being 
created or saved. With an investment of about $26 million, we have 
leveraged another 30 million in State and local dollars and more than 
558 million in private sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful 
success story.
  Particularly in these difficult economic times, we should be doing 
all we can to ensure the continuation of such successful programs, and 
reauthorization is an important step. I hope now-President Obama 
reconsiders the rhetoric of then-candidate Obama and recognizes the 
effectiveness and importance of this agency. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as in the House of 
Representatives, to reauthorize the programs of the Economic 
Development Administration as quickly as possible.
  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. 430

       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 ``Economic Development 
     Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.

       Section 101 of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3131) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(e) Excellence in Economic Development Awards.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--To recognize innovative 
     economic development strategies of national significance, the 
     Secretary may establish and carry out a program, to be known 
     as the `Excellence in Economic Development Award Program' 
     (referred to in this subsection as the `program').
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible for recognition 
     under the program, an entity shall be an eligible recipient 
     that is not a for-profit organization or institution.
       ``(3) Nominations.--Before making an award under the 
     program, the Secretary shall solicit nominations publicly, in 
     accordance with such selection and evaluation procedures as 
     the Secretary may establish in the solicitation.
       ``(4) Categories.--The categories of awards under the 
     program shall include awards for--
       ``(A) urban or suburban economic development;
       ``(B) rural economic development;
       ``(C) environmental or energy economic development;
       ``(D) economic diversification strategies that respond to 
     economic dislocations, including economic dislocations caused 
     by natural disasters and military base realignment and 
     closure actions;
       ``(E) university-led strategies to enhance economic 
     development;
       ``(F) community- and faith-based social entrepreneurship;
       ``(G) historic preservation-led strategies to enhance 
     economic development; and
       ``(H) such other categories as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.
       ``(5) Provision of awards.--The Secretary may provide to 
     each entity selected to receive an award under this 
     subsection a plaque, bowl, or similar article to commemorate 
     the accomplishments of the entity.
       ``(6) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out this 
     Act, the Secretary may use not more than $2,000 for each 
     fiscal year to carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF RECIPIENT FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH 
                   PROJECT ASSETS.

       (a) Revolving Loan Fund Program Flexibility.--Section 
     209(d) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Conversion of project assets.--
       ``(A) Request.--If a recipient determines that a revolving 
     loan fund established using assistance provided under this 
     section is no longer needed, or that the recipient could make 
     better use of the assistance in light of the current economic 
     development needs of the recipient if the assistance was made 
     available to carry out any other project that meets the 
     requirements of this Act, the recipient may submit to the 
     Secretary a request to approve the conversion of the 
     assistance.
       ``(B) Methods of conversion.--A recipient the request to 
     convert assistance of which is approved under subparagraph 
     (A) may accomplish the conversion by--
       ``(i) selling to a third party any assets of the applicable 
     revolving loan fund; or
       ``(ii) retaining repayments of principal and interest 
     amounts on loans provided through the applicable revolving 
     loan fund.
       ``(C) Requirements.--
       ``(i) Sale.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), a recipient 
     shall use the net proceeds from a sale of assets under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) to pay any portion of the costs of 1 or 
     more projects that meet the requirements of this Act.
       ``(II) Treatment.--For purposes of subclause (I), a project 
     described in that subclause shall be considered to be 
     eligible under section 301.

       ``(ii) Retention of repayments.--Retention by a recipient 
     of any repayment under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be carried 
     out in accordance with a strategic reuse plan approved by the 
     Secretary that provides for the increase of capital over time 
     until sufficient amounts (including interest earned on the 
     amounts) are accumulated to fund other projects that meet the 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(D) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
     terms and conditions regarding a proposed conversion of the 
     use of assistance under this paragraph as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(E) Expediency requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that any assistance intended to be converted for use pursuant 
     to this paragraph is used in an expeditious manner.
       ``(6) Program administration.--The Secretary may allocate 
     not more than 2 percent of the amounts made available for 
     grants under this section for the development and maintenance 
     of an automated tracking and monitoring system to ensure the 
     proper operation and financial integrity of the revolving 
     loan program established under this section.''.
       (b) Maintenance of Effort.--Title VI of the Public Works 
     and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 613. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

       ``(a) Expected Period of Best Efforts.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes of this 
     Act, before providing investment assistance for a 
     construction project under this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish the expected period during which the recipient of 
     the assistance shall make best efforts to achieve the 
     economic development objectives of the assistance.
       ``(2) Treatment of property.--To obtain the best efforts of 
     a recipient during the period established under paragraph 
     (1), during that period--
       ``(A) any property that is acquired or improved, in whole 
     or in part, using investment assistance under this Act shall 
     be held in trust by the recipient for the benefit of the 
     project; and
       ``(B) the Secretary shall retain an undivided equitable 
     reversionary interest in the property.
       ``(3) Termination of federal interest.--

[[Page 3816]]

       ``(A) In general.--Beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary determines that a recipient has fulfilled the 
     obligations of the recipient for the applicable period under 
     paragraph (1), taking into consideration the economic 
     conditions existing during that period, the Secretary may 
     terminate the reversionary interest of the Secretary in any 
     applicable property under paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(B) Alternative method of termination.--
       ``(i) In general.--On a determination by a recipient that 
     the economic development needs of the recipient have changed 
     during the period beginning on the date on which investment 
     assistance for a construction project is provided under this 
     Act and ending on the expiration of the expected period 
     established for the project under paragraph (1), the 
     recipient may submit to the Secretary a request to terminate 
     the reversionary interest of the Secretary in property of the 
     project under paragraph (2)(B) before the date described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Approval.--The Secretary may approve a request of a 
     recipient under clause (i) if--

       ``(I) in any case in which the request is submitted during 
     the 10-year period beginning on the date on which assistance 
     is initially provided under this Act for the applicable 
     project, the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount 
     equal to 100 percent of the fair market value of the pro rata 
     Federal share of the project; or
       ``(II) in any case in which the request is submitted after 
     the expiration of the 10-year period described in subclause 
     (I), the recipient repays to the Secretary an amount equal to 
     the fair market value of the pro rata Federal share of the 
     project as if that value had been amortized over the period 
     established under paragraph (1), based on a straight-line 
     depreciation of the project throughout the estimated useful 
     life of the project.

       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may establish 
     such terms and conditions under this section as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate, including by extending the 
     period of a reversionary interest of the Secretary under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) in any case in which the Secretary 
     determines that the performance of a recipient is 
     unsatisfactory.
       ``(c) Previously Extended Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to any recipient to which 
     the term of provision of assistance was extended under this 
     Act before the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary may approve a request of the recipient under 
     subsection (a) in accordance with the requirements of this 
     section to ensure uniform administration of this Act, 
     notwithstanding any estimated useful life period that 
     otherwise relates to the assistance.
       ``(2) Conversion of use.--If a recipient described in 
     paragraph (1) demonstrates to the Secretary that the intended 
     use of the project for which assistance was provided under 
     this Act no longer represents the best use of the property 
     used for the project, the Secretary may approve a request by 
     the recipient to convert the property to a different use for 
     the remainder of the term of the Federal interest in the 
     property, subject to the condition that the new use shall be 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act.
       ``(d) Status of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary 
     under this section is in addition to any authority of the 
     Secretary pursuant to any law or grant agreement in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this section.''.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 701(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2004'' and inserting 
     ``2009'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2010'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2011'';
       (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
     ``2012''; and
       (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
     ``2013''.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       Section 704 of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3234) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 704. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR PLANNING AND GRANTS FOR 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), of the 
     amounts made available under section 701 for each fiscal 
     year, not less than $27,000,000 shall be made available to 
     provide grants under section 203.
       ``(b) Subject to Total Appropriations.--For any fiscal 
     year, the amount made available pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall be increased to--
       ``(1) $28,000,000, if the total amount made available under 
     subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater 
     than $300,000,000;
       ``(2) $29,500,000, if the total amount made available under 
     subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater 
     than $340,000,000;
       ``(3) $31,000,000, if the total amount made available under 
     subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater 
     than $380,000,000;
       ``(4) $32,500,000, if the total amount made available under 
     subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater 
     than $420,000,000; and
       ``(5) $34,500,000, if the total amount made available under 
     subsection 701(a) for the fiscal year is equal to or greater 
     than $460,000,000.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 432. A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy 
Act of 1992 to honor the legacy of Stewart L. Udall, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator McCain 
in introducing a bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Act, both to enhance the 
Udall Foundation and to honor one of the foremost environmental 
visionaries of American history, Stewart L. Udall.
  The Morris K. Udall Foundation was established by Congress in 1992 to 
provide federal-funded scholarships to the growing number of students 
in America who wish to become environmental professionals in the public 
and private sectors and importantly, to identify and educate new 
generations of leaders in Indian Country. By now, there are more than 
1,100 young Udall Scholars and Udall Native American interns around the 
country. The educational programs of the Foundation have earned 
national significance and are among the most sought after on American 
campuses.
  In 1998, Foundation grew to include a new Federal environmental 
mediation program created by Congress. Named the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, the agency has played a quiet 
leading role to find common ground on issues as diverse as Everglades 
Restoration to the joint tribal-federal management of the National 
Bison Range Complex. The Institute's small in-house staff, often 
working in partnership with members of its national roster of 
mediators, have handled important conflict resolution processes in 
collaboration with many federal departments including Interior, 
Defense, USDA Forest Service, and Transportation. Now more than ever, 
these skills are needed to move infrastructure projects and restore the 
economy.
  The Udall Foundation is also a founder and funder of the Native 
Nations Institute, NNI, a graduate educator and policy center for 
Indian Country. NNI teaches a new way of governance on the reservations 
which embraces tribal identity as a core principle and smart business 
practices as a way to assist Indian nations rebuild their economies. In 
the last 5 years, more than 2,000 Native American leaders have 
benefitted from its courses. New leaders emerging from the Foundation's 
education programs are beginning to take their places in Tribal 
governance.
  The Udall Foundation's Parks in Focus aims to connect underserved 
youth to nature through the art of photography. The Foundation 
organizes week-long trips, introduces members of local Boys & Girls 
Clubs, many of whom have never before left their communities, to some 
of the most beautiful natural landscapes in the country; provides them 
with Canon digital cameras to use and keep; and teaches the basics of 
photography, ecology, and conservation while exploring national parks, 
wildlife refuges, and other public lands. The Foundation will be 
expanding the Parks in Focus program significantly in the coming years.
  The proposed legislation includes additional resources for operations 
of this fine agency as well as renaming it the Morris K. Udall and 
Stewart L. Udall Foundation, in recognition of the historic Interior 
Secretary's contributions.
  Stewart Udall was Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy 
and Johnson, where his accomplishments earned him a special place among 
those ever to serve in that post and have made him an icon in the 
environmental and conservation communities. His

[[Page 3817]]

best-selling book on environmental attitudes in the U.S., The Quiet 
Crisis, 1963, along with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, is credited 
with creating a consciousness in the country leading to the 
environmental movement.
  Stewart's remarkable career in public service has left an indelible 
mark on the Nation's environmental and cultural heritage. Born in 1920, 
and educated in Saint Johns, Arizona, Udall attended the University of 
Arizona for 2 years until World War II. He served 4 years in the Air 
Force as an enlisted B24 gunner flying 50 missions over Western Europe 
for which he received the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters. He 
returned to the University of Arizona in 1946 where he played guard on 
a championship basketball team and attended law school. He received his 
law degree and was admitted to the Arizona bar in 1948. He married Erma 
Lee Webb during this time. They raised 6 children.
  Stewart was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona 
in 1954. He served with distinction in the House for 3 terms on the 
Interior and Education and Labor committees. In 1960, President Kennedy 
appointed Stewart Udall Secretary of Interior. In this role, he oversaw 
the addition of four parks, 6 national monuments, 8 seashores and 
lakeshores, 9 recreation areas, 20 historic sites and 56 wildlife 
refuges to the National Park system. During his tenure as the Interior 
Secretary, President Johnson signed into law the Wilderness Act, the 
Water Quality Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Trails 
Bill. Stewart also helped spark a cultural renaissance in America by 
setting in motion initiatives that led to the Kennedy Center, Wolf Trap 
Farm Park, the National Endowments for Arts and the Humanities, and the 
revived Ford's Theatre.
  Stewart currently resides in Santa Fe, NM, and will turn 90 years old 
in the coming year.
  The Udall Foundation is an exemplary organization doing remarkable 
work and I am pleased to support additional resources to this agency. 
In addition, Stewart displayed significant leadership in helping to 
enact much of the legislation that protects our environment and lands 
today as well as being one of the first people to point to problems in 
the environment. For these and many other reasons, he deserves 
inclusion in the Foundation on par with his brother, Morris.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage 
of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL, of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. Udall, of 
        Colorado):
  S. 433. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
1978 to establish a renewable electricity standard, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce 
legislation to establish a Federal renewable electricity standard. 
Before I talk about what that will do, let me tell you a little bit 
about the people it will help.
  Luna County, NM has a double-digit unemployment rate. More than half 
of its children live in poverty. It was in recession before our current 
economic crisis. If nothing changes, it will be in recession long after 
the rest of the country recovers. Now, let me be clear. Luna County 
deserves help, but I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. We usually 
think of economic development as something you pay for. But the 
proposal I am introducing today does not spend a dime. In fact, my plan 
will generate tax revenue.
  Luna County has something else worth noting. When you look at the 
United States on a map that measures solar thermal energy, Luna County 
is red hot. Like hundreds of small communities across our country, Luna 
has immense untapped potential for renewable energy. If Luna can find a 
way to sell its sunlight, its future will be secure. But Luna has a 
problem. America's energy markets do not value Luna's sunlight the way 
they should. These markets ignore three critical things. First, growing 
demand and stagnant supply mean rising prices for fossil fuels. The 
price of natural gas has more than tripled since 1995. Unless we act, 
we can expect more price spikes in the future, spikes that threaten the 
economy. But it is easier for utilities to buy a little more natural 
gas than it is to invest in clean technologies. The result is that we 
are moving forward as if our energy use is sustainable, when we know it 
is not.
  In most markets, this would be bad enough, but our energy markets 
have two other problems. Americans care whether our energy comes from 
farmers in Iowa or mullahs in Iran, but our markets do not. When we buy 
solar energy from Luna County, we keep our money in this country, and 
we make ourselves less dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran, 
countries that have shown their willingness to use our dependence 
against us. America's energy markets also ignore global climate change. 
Right now a clean electron produced by the sun costs as much as an 
electron produced by burning carbon. Our markets don't care whether the 
energy we consume is leading to fewer farms and more forest fires. They 
don't care whether our grandchildren will be able to live comfortably 
on this Earth. They just don't care. And we are paying the price. Even 
the most conservative economists will tell us that energy is a classic 
case of market failure. The energy market ignores our economic 
security, our national security, and the future of our world. 
Economists call these things externalities. I call them the basis of 
our way of life.
  So what do we do? I am proposing that we demand a little bit more 
from our utilities. Let's require that they produce 25 percent of their 
electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Thanks in large part to 
Senator Bingaman, the Senate has already passed a similar proposal 
three times. Last year I was proud to help pass a proposal such as this 
in the other body.
  Renewable electricity standards have succeeded at the State level. In 
fact, more than 28 States have renewable standards, including the State 
of New Mexico. But a national RES has never become the law of the land. 
It is time for Congress to make it so.
  There are many reasons to support this plan. To start, it is good for 
consumers. Scientists looking at a 20-percent standard concluded that 
it could save utility customers $31.8 billion. A 25-percent standard 
would save even more. A renewable energy standard would also strengthen 
rural communities and provide new income for farmers and ranchers.
  This plan will make America safer. The billions of dollars it will 
generate are dollars that cannot be used to hold our foreign policy 
hostage.
  Most importantly, a national renewable standard will create hundreds 
of thousands of high-paying jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. Study 
after study shows that shifting capital to renewable energy increases 
job creation. Not only will this plan stimulate job creation today, it 
will put us on a path toward dominance in the industries of the future.
  Some of my colleagues will probably say a renewable standard makes 
sense for sunny New Mexico, but it won't work for their States. I urge 
them to take another look at their States. Scientists predict that 
Florida could one day meet one-third of its energy needs by tapping the 
power of the gulf stream. Louisiana has wind energy potential offshore, 
and New Orleans has already begun to rebuild its economy by creating 
jobs developing solar energy. Alaska has wind energy potential all over 
its coast and geothermal potential in the south. The State of Tennessee 
concluded its existing investment in renewables could yield 4,500 jobs 
and additional investment could yield 45,000.
  Everywhere we look, America has untapped renewable energy potential. 
But for the sake of argument, let's say that Louisiana might have to 
import some energy from Florida under a national renewable standard. 
Louisiana already imports a big chunk of its energy. As consumption 
rises, more and more of Louisiana's energy comes from imports. Today 
those imports come largely from natural gas, and 43 percent of

[[Page 3818]]

the world's natural gas is under Russia and Iran. So Louisiana is 
bidding up the price of a commodity that is largely controlled by 
countries that don't like us. I would rather buy hydropower from 
Florida than fossil fuels from Iran.
  The choice is not between importing and not importing. It is between 
Charlie Crist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not a tough choice.
  Of course, some people say they support a renewable standard, but not 
yet. They say America cannot afford to reduce our contribution to 
climate change because the growth of China and India will drown out the 
impact of our emissions reductions. This concern is very real, but it 
represents a failure of our moral imagination. If we are to have a 
future as a country and as a global community, we cannot see the 
world's aspiring middle class as potential threats. We have to see them 
as potential customers. And we should be racing to develop the 
technologies they will need.
  Waiting for China to address its emissions problem before we address 
ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start 
to lace up.
  Right now, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition; America 
just does not always admit it. As the world's citizens see the impact 
of climate change, we are demanding energy supplies that do not 
endanger our collective future. That means soon clean energy will not 
be an alternative, it will be the standard. When that happens, 
whichever country dominates the clean energy industry will be able to 
create jobs on a grand scale.
  Do not take my word for it. The CEO of GE Energy has testified before 
the Congress that ``wind and solar energy are likely to be among the 
largest sources''--largest sources--``of new manufacturing jobs 
worldwide during the 21st Century.'' Think about what he said:

       [W]ind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest 
     sources of new manufacturing jobs. . . .

  We hear a lot of discussion on this floor about new manufacturing 
jobs and us losing manufacturing jobs. Well, this is where the new 
manufacturing jobs are going to be.
  A growing chorus of economists and business leaders agree with what 
this GE Energy CEO has said.
  America cannot afford to let another country become the world's clean 
energy leader. But right now we are falling behind. Countries that have 
done much more to shape their energy markets have already created 
thriving green energy industries. With a population roughly one-quarter 
as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers 
developing wind energy technologies. Spain has almost five times as 
many workers in the solar thermal industry as America. China has more 
than 300 times as many.
  America is not falling behind because our scientists are not smart 
enough. Some of the big ideas now powering the economies of Europe 
originated right here. From 1970 to 1996, Los Alamos National Lab 
developed a technique for cleanly and efficiently using the Earth's 
heat to generate electricity. Estimates indicated the technique could 
eventually power the Earth for hundreds of years. But without market 
incentives to encourage continued development, progress stagnated. 
Germany took that technology and brought it to market in just 3 years. 
They now have 150 geothermal plants nearing completion. Think of the 
jobs that will create. Those could be our jobs. Those should be our 
jobs.
  A renewable electricity standard would let America catch up and take 
the lead. We still have the world's most productive workers. We still 
have the most creative entrepreneurs. Our culture encourages individual 
initiative to solve tough problems. But if we want to win, we have to 
act now.
  The American people are ready for this. I have driven to every county 
in New Mexico, and everywhere I saw innovation. I saw wind turbines 
going up in Little Texas. I saw the spot in Deming, NM, where the 
world's largest solar plant will sit. At Mesalands Community College in 
Tucumcari, NM, I saw a classroom in a wind turbine hundreds of feet 
over the desert. Even Luna County is starting to develop its resources. 
They just need help.
  The Federal Government is late to the party. We should be leading the 
clean energy revolution. Instead, our constituents are leaving us in 
the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to 
create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that 
values our economic security, our national security, our environmental 
security.
  Mr. President, it is time for us to lead.
  Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about 
renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this 
issue for years. As I said earlier, he has passed a renewable standard 
in the Senate three times. I introduced this legislation today because 
I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to 
working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity 
standard signed into law.
  I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another 
Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the 
senior Senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body 
together. And much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable 
electricity standard. We were both attracted to his proposal because it 
reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New 
Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to 
thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his 
support through the years.
  Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private 
sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that 
supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic 
security, our national security, our environmental security.
  Is time for us to lead.
  Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about 
renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this 
issue for years. I introduce this legislation today because I want to 
help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with 
him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed 
into law.
  I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another 
Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the 
senior senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body 
together, and much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable 
electricity standard. We were both attracted to this proposal because 
it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and 
New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want 
to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his 
support through the years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution supporting a base Defense Budget 
that at the very minimum matches 4 percent of gross domestic product; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing today a joint resolution, 
S.J. Res. 10, with Congressman Trent Franks introducing the identical 
joint resolution in the House, which sets a minimum baseline for 
defense spending.
  By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4 percent, this 
country can achieve two critical needs--national security and economic 
growth.
  For the past few weeks, this Congress has been debating an economic 
stimulus plan. Defense spending, along with infrastructure spending and 
tax cuts, has a greater stimulative impact on the economy than some of 
the provisions in there. In fact, I had amendments, which I will 
describe in a minute, that would have increased the percentage in this 
huge bill, so that you would have maybe up to 10 percent for 
transportation infrastructure and then defense--I will explain that in 
more detail later.
  Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to 
meet current and future needs. In order to

[[Page 3819]]

provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a not less than 
baseline in defense funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained 
multiyear program investments. Guaranteeing a baseline budget, not 
including supplemental, that sets the floor based on our GDP is the 
best way to accomplish this.
  At this point, I acknowledge that I had an experience back during the 
first hearing we had for the confirmation of then-Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld. I asked the question at that time: We have serious problems. 
We don't know what our future needs are going to be. We may think we 
know what they are going to be today--and we have a lot of smart 
generals who will tell us, but they are going to be wrong. I remember 
at that time I said that in 1994 someone testified and said in 10 years 
we would no longer need to have a ground force, that everything would 
be done from the air in a precision, clean way. That would be awfully 
nice, but that is not the way it happened. I said, recognizing that we 
need to have the best of everything, what would be your recommendation? 
He said that he made a study of this--it was not his, but he said that 
if you will go back and study it over the last 100 years, the average 
amount of defense spending has been 5.7 percent of GDP. That was all 
during the 20th century, for 100 years.
  Now, we went down at the end of the 1990 to as low as 2.9 percent, 
and now we are at 3.6 percent. The problem is the predictability. It is 
not there. We don't know in these systems what we can rely on. We know 
the cost of closing down a manufacturing line, but we don't have the 
predictability we need.
  There are some who think by cutting unnecessary weapons systems along 
with reforming DOD's procurement process, we can reduce defense 
spending and still maintain a military level that could defend our 
Nation and reach the minimum expectations of the American people. The 
problem with that is that it doesn't happen that way. Yes, we need 
acquisition reform, I agree. But the overall budget outlays and the 
problems we have--this alone will not rebuild our military.
  We could eliminate weapons systems that are called low-hanging fruit. 
That has already been done several years ago. I think we all remember--
and some would rather forget--that after the Cold War, there were so 
many in this Chamber who said we were in a position then where we did 
not need the military because the Cold War was over. We talked about 
all kinds of schemes that would transfer previous military spending 
into current spending for social programs. This is the way people were 
thinking at that time, that the Cold War is over. They had this 
euphoric attitude that we didn't need to continue a strong defense.
  We have been trying to get past a bow wave created in the 1990s. As a 
result, the amount of defense spending actually appropriated during 
that 8 years, the 1990s, was $412 billion above the budget request. In 
other words, the budget request was $412 billion below what was 
sustained at the beginning of that 8-year period. This is what we are 
paying for now. Little did we know at that time that 9/11 would come, 
and that while we are trying to rebuild our military in terms of 
modernization, force strength, we would be attacked and have to start 
defending America and prosecuting a war.
  I believe we should spend only as much as we need to ensure our 
national defense--no more, no less. This joint resolution sets a 
minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum 
defense budget of 4 percent, this country can achieve two critical 
needs--national security and economic health.
  First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next 
generation of weapons and equipment. This is something we have been 
concerned about--weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain 
our national security over the next 40 years or more. The age of the 
last KC-135R, when it retires, will be 70 years old, and the B-52 will 
be even older than that. We are still doing this. We need this 
contribution for more heavy equipment. Right now, we have gotten into a 
problem of not developing them. They say the old KC-135R--we have a few 
more years on that. If we started today on a new lift vehicle to 
replace that, it would be several years before we would be able to have 
these replaced.
  The second thing is it will create and maintain jobs across America 
and sustain our military industrial base. Investing in our Nation's 
defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides 
for our national security at the same time. Experts estimate that each 
$1 billion in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs.
  Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the United 
States with our aerospace industry alone employing 655,000 workers 
spread across 44 States. The U.S. shipbuilding industry supports more 
than 400,000 workers in 47 States.
  Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the 
Department of Defense and the services to plan for and fund acquisition 
programs based on a minimum known budget through what we call our FYDP 
program.
  We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition 
programs in 3 to 5 years. The KC-X will take over 30 years to complete 
once its contract is awarded. We will still be flying these up until 
that time.
  Programming from a known minimum budget for the outyears will 
translate to less programming and more stability for thousands of 
businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.
  This week, I voted against this massive Government spending bill that 
provided plenty in the way of more wasteful Government spending and 
little in the way of stimulative opportunities such as defense 
spending.
  I offered two amendments. One would have increased defense spending, 
and without changing the top line of the bill that was before us, it 
would change within it to have more defense spending and provide jobs. 
At the same time, in this entire $900 billion--or whatever it ends up 
being--bill that we are prepared to vote on out of conference, only $27 
billion was in roads, bridges, and the things that Americans know we 
need.
  If we had that along with the additional amount or percentage that 
would go to defense spending, it would equate to an increase of an 
additional 4 million jobs. This is what we have heard President Obama 
talking about for quite some time. That is one way to do it. At the 
same time, we have something that is lasting.
  We--and certainly the Chair knows this because she sits on the same 
committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we are going to 
be doing a reauthorization of the highway bill. There is more we could 
have done in this particular bill that is totally inadequate in terms 
of putting people to work. The amendments we offered were defeated.
  Today Congressman Trent Franks and I are simultaneously offering a 
joint resolution to keep this country safe, restore our military to the 
level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand, 
and provide for sustainable jobs in almost every State in the country.
  By voting for this joint resolution, we send a clear signal to our 
military, to our allies, to our enemies--all alike--that we are 
committed to the security of this Nation and that we will not have to 
go through something like we went through during the nineties.
  One of the great heroes of our time is GEN John Jumper. Before he was 
Chief of the Air Force, he stood in 1998 and made a very courageous 
statement. He said now the Russians are cranking out through their SU-
30s, SU-35s, a strike vehicle better than anything we have in this 
country. The best ones at that time were the F-15 and F-16. Had it not 
been for his statement as a wakeup call to the American people, China, 
that bought a bunch of SU vehicles from Russia would have better 
vehicles than we were sending up with our fliers in potential combat. 
All of a sudden, we were able to turn around and start programs such as 
the F-22 and F-35 so we could be No. 1.
  The American people assume all the time we are No. 1, and obviously 
we are not. When the American people find out the best artillery piece 
we have right now, which is called Paladin--it

[[Page 3820]]

is World War II technology. You have to get out and swab the breach 
after every shot. It is outrageous. Prospective enemies in the field 
would have better equipment than we would have.
  The best way to do this and ensure this in the future is to have a 
baseline. I am hoping we will get the support of enough Senators to get 
this passed in both the House and the Senate since it is a joint 
resolution.
  Lastly, let me address some of the points that were said by the 
Senator from Florida. I agree with all his comments. He is a little 
nicer about it than I am, I guess. Don't lose sight of the fact that 
this is supposed to be a stimulus bill, not a spending bill. But it is 
a spending bill.
  We had people analyze what in this bill will stimulat the economy. 
There are two things that can do it: the right types of tax relief. We 
know this is true. We remember what happened during President Kennedy's 
term and the recommendation he made when he said we have to have more 
revenues to run our Great Society programs. The best way to increase 
revenue is decrease marginal rates. He decreased marginal rates. 
Between the years 1961 and 1968, our revenues increased by 62 percent. 
Unbelievable.
  In the year 1980, the total amount of money that came from marginal 
rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled 
in the decade when we had the greatest reductions in capital gains 
rates, in marginal rates, inheritance tax rates.
  There are only two very minor items in this bill that address the tax 
situation. One has to do with accelerated depreciation. Another is with 
loss carryback, increasing it from 2 years to 5 years, I believe it is. 
If you add that together in terms of the cost that is in the bill, this 
$900 billion bill we are going to be passing, we have to keep in mind 
that is a very small part. It amounts to about 3\1/3\ percent. The 
other way you can stimulate is to increase jobs.
  I mentioned we had an amendment to increase jobs. It is outrageous 
that there is only $27 billion worth of highway construction, road 
construction, and bridge construction that we desperately need in this 
country in this bill.
  We have right now $64 billion worth of shovel-ready jobs that we 
could actually produce in this country, and all we have is 3\1/3\ 
percent of the entire amount of $900 billion going to that type of 
program. That is where I come up with the conclusion that this bill is 
7 percent stimulus and 93 percent spending.
  I have to tell you, back when the first $700 billion program came 
along in October, yes, that came from our administration, a Republican 
administration, a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. But also the 
Democrats were all very enthusiastically behind it. I opposed it at 
that time and said there are two problems with it. No. 1, this amount 
of money, $700 billion, is more money, it is the largest expenditure, 
largest authorization in the history of the world, and we are giving 
it, No. 2, to a guy with no guidelines, without any kind of oversight.
  We have seen now that has not worked. Now we have the second half of 
that, and we find out yesterday the current Secretary of the Treasury 
is going to use it any way he wants. Again, no oversight. This was a 
horrible mistake. That was the $700 billion last October.
  Now we are faced with something far greater than that. I know it is 
going to go through. It is a Democratic bill. It is not a bipartisan 
bill. It is not a compromise. It is a Democratic bill. They took the 
House bill and the Senate bill and something will come from that. 
Whether it is closer to the House bill or the Senate bill, it does not 
matter. It is going to be close to $900 billion, something we should 
not have had.
  We are thinking in new terms now. I used to say back during the $700 
billion, if you take the total number of families in America who are 
filing tax returns and do your math, it comes to $5,000 a family. That 
was bad enough. This bill comes to $17,400 a family over a 10-year 
period. That is what we have to start thinking about.
  I am hoping the American people will look at this bill and realize 
this gigantic spending bill follows a philosophy that you can spend 
your way out of a recession. It has never happened before. It is not 
going to happen with this bill.
  We want to do the very best we can. I know President Obama did not 
want to go as far this way. I think the House and the Senate have 
steered this into a bigger spending bill than he would have liked. I 
think he would have liked more stimulants in this bill.
  Let's do the best we can with it and then let's get busy and try the 
things we know have worked in the past and will work in the future.

                          ____________________