[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1317-1325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Franken):
  S. 290. A bill to reduce housing-related health hazards, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bipartisan bills 
pertaining to healthy housing, the Healthy Housing Council Act and the 
Title X Amendments Act. These bills seek to improve federal 
coordination of healthy housing efforts and better integrate healthy 
housing activities into the ongoing lead poisoning prevention work at 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The presence of housing-related health hazards is often overlooked or 
is unable to be addressed, and yet these hazards are sometimes the 
cause of a variety of preventable diseases and conditions like cancer, 
lead poisoning, and asthma. While I have been working to address these 
hazards throughout my tenure in Congress, I was pleased that the 
Administration last week released its Strategy for Action to Advance 
Healthy Housing, a multi-department and agency effort to develop 
consensus-based criteria to address housing hazards that impact the 
health and habitation of children and families.
  This new Strategy for Action calls on Federal agencies to address 
barriers and disincentives to the delivery of services to improve 
housing conditions, particularly among low-income families with young 
children; replicate successful local healthy housing programs on a 
larger scale; and conduct more research into cost-effective advances in 
healthy housing programming.
  The Title X Amendments Act, S. 290, which I am introducing with 
Senators Johanns, Franken, and Boxer, and has been in the drafting 
stages for many months, responds to these calls for action. It would 
provide HUD with the necessary authority to continue to carry out 
healthy housing activities while protecting important ongoing lead 
remediation efforts, allow grantees to improve the conditions in zero-
bedroom units, and streamline eligibility for assistance. These are 
simple, yet necessary reforms designed to improve and expand cost-
effective services, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
see them enacted.
  It is also vital that we continue the type of collaboration and 
coordination among Federal departments and agencies, like HUD, HHS, 
EPA, and CDC, that resulted in the Strategy for Action to Advance 
Healthy Homes. Indeed, there are many programs fragmented across 
multiple agencies that are responsible for addressing housing-related 
health hazards like lead and radon, and we should strive to improve the 
efficiency and efficacy of these efforts by ensuring that these 
agencies continue to work together.
  The Healthy Housing Council Act, S. 291, which Senator Johanns, 
Franken, and Boxer have also cosponsored, would establish an 
independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive 
branch in order to improve coordination, bring existing efforts out of 
their respective silos, and reduce duplication.
  The bill calls for the council to convene periodic meetings with 
experts in the public and private sectors to discuss ways to educate 
individuals and families on how to recognize housing-related health 
hazards and access the necessary services and preventive measures to 
combat these hazards. The council would also be required to hold 
biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to 
unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance.
  Our goal for these bills is to help reduce the more than 5.7 million 
households living in conditions with moderate or severe health hazards, 
23 million additional homes with lead-based paint hazards, 14,000 
unintentional injury and fire deaths every year that result from 
housing-related hazards, and

[[Page 1318]]

21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths every year. Indeed, these 
numbers contribute to increasing health care costs for individuals and 
families, as well as for federal, state, and local governments.
  Promoting low-cost measures to eliminate subpar housing can make a 
dramatic and meaningful difference in the lives of children and 
families and help reduce health care costs. I urge our colleagues to 
join in supporting these bipartisan bills.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. Baldwin):
  S. 296. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting 
permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent 
residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner 
as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize 
immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting 
American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples 
the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. 
This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, 
and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong 
champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last 
Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an 
original cosponsor today.
  Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy. 
President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see 
that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he 
outlined last month.
  Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay 
and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces 
many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with 
the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and 
forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no 
American should have to make. Families from Maine to California 
experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the 
unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws 
and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have 
heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult 
decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able 
to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole 
spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they 
will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak 
of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a 
visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as 
well.
  Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that 
U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed 
relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides. 
As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including 
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 
York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex 
marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both 
the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian 
service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent 
with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week 
the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the 
same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our 
past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are 
progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to 
decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law, 
which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and 
responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values.
  Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration 
equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including 
some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex 
couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, 
Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, 
Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New 
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, 
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil 
rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that 
Senators who supported this important advancement in our military 
policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our 
immigration laws.
  Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that 
it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the 
belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, 
but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will 
have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships 
than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under 
this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These 
are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, 
$250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the 
foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national 
couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 
years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another 
adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human 
relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by 
such fears.
  Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights 
and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up 
to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and 
should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States 
should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their 
country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join 
Senator Collins and me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 296

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION AND 
                   NATIONALITY ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Uniting 
     American Families Act of 2013''.
       (b) Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act.--Except 
     as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, if an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed as the amendment or repeal 
     of a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to that section or provision in the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act; 
              table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions of permanent partner and permanent partnership.
Sec. 3. Worldwide level of immigration.
Sec. 4. Numerical limitations on individual foreign states.
Sec. 5. Allocation of immigrant visas.
Sec. 6. Procedure for granting immigrant status.
Sec. 7. Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency 
              situation refugees.
Sec. 8. Asylum.
Sec. 9. Adjustment of status of refugees.
Sec. 10. Inadmissible aliens.
Sec. 11. Nonimmigrant status for permanent partners awaiting the 
              availability of an immigrant visa.
Sec. 12. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien 
              spouses, permanent partners, and sons and daughters.
Sec. 13. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien 
              entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and children.
Sec. 14. Deportable aliens.

[[Page 1319]]

Sec. 15. Removal proceedings.
Sec. 16. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status.
Sec. 17. Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person 
              admitted for permanent residence.
Sec. 18. Application of criminal penalties to for misrepresentation and 
              concealment of facts regarding permanent partnerships.
Sec. 19. Requirements as to residence, good moral character, attachment 
              to the principles of the Constitution.
Sec. 20. Naturalization for permanent partners of citizens.
Sec. 21. Application of family unity provisions to permanent partners 
              of certain LIFE Act beneficiaries.
Sec. 22. Application to Cuban Adjustment Act.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS OF PERMANENT PARTNER AND PERMANENT 
                   PARTNERSHIP.

       Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (15)(K)(ii), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(52) The term `permanent partner' means an individual 18 
     years of age or older who--
       ``(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another 
     individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals 
     intend a lifelong commitment;
       ``(B) is financially interdependent with that other 
     individual;
       ``(C) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership 
     with, any individual other than that other individual;
       ``(D) is unable to contract with that other individual a 
     marriage cognizable under this Act; and
       ``(E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood 
     relation of that other individual.
       ``(53) The term `permanent partnership' means the 
     relationship that exists between 2 permanent partners.''.

     SEC. 3. WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION.

       Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by ``spouse'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``spouse or permanent partner'';
       (2) by striking ``spouses'' and inserting ``spouse, 
     permanent partner,'';
       (3) by inserting ``(or, in the case of a permanent 
     partnership, whose permanent partnership was not 
     terminated)'' after ``was not legally separated from the 
     citizen''; and
       (4) by striking ``remarries.'' and inserting ``remarries or 
     enters a permanent partnership with another person.''.

     SEC. 4. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES.

       (a) Per Country Levels.--Section 202(a)(4) (8 U.S.C. 
     1152(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent 
     partners,'' after ``spouses'';
       (2) in the heading of subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, 
     permanent partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
       (3) in the heading of subparagraph (C), by striking ``and 
     daughters'' inserting ``without permanent partners and 
     unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
       (b) Rules for Chargeability.--Section 202(b)(2) (8 U.S.C. 
     1152(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``his spouse'' and inserting ``his or her 
     spouse or permanent partner'';
       (2) by striking ``such spouse'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``such spouse or permanent partner''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or permanent partners'' after ``husband 
     and wife''.

     SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS.

       (a) Preference Allocation for Family Members of Permanent 
     Resident Aliens.--Section 203(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Spouses, permanent partners, unmarried sons without 
     permanent partners, and unmarried daughters without permanent 
     partners of permanent resident aliens.--'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or unmarried 
     daughters'' and inserting ``without permanent partners or the 
     unmarried daughters without permanent partners''.
       (b) Preference Allocation for Sons and Daughters of 
     Citizens.--Section 203(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Married sons and daughters of citizens and sons and 
     daughters with permanent partners of citizens.--''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, or sons or daughters with permanent 
     partners,'' after ``daughters''.
       (c) Employment Creation.--Section 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) (8 
     U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,''.
       (d) Treatment of Family Members.--Section 203(d) (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``section 
     101(b)(1)''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``the 
     spouse''.

     SEC. 6. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STATUS.

       (a) Classification Petitions.--Section 204(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse'';
       (B) in clause (iii)--
       (i) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (ii) in subclause (I), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears;
       (C) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``permanent partner,'' 
     after ``is the spouse,''; and
       (D) in clause (vi)--
       (i) by inserting ``or termination of the permanent 
     partnership'' after ``divorce''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after 
     ``spouse''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I)(aa), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'';
       (ii) in subclause (I)(bb), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'' the first place it appears; 
     and
       (iii) in subclause (II)(aa), by inserting ``(or the 
     termination of the permanent partnership)'' after 
     ``termination of the marriage''.
       (b) Immigration Fraud Prevention.--Section 204(c) (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(c)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (2) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 7. ANNUAL ADMISSION OF REFUGEES AND ADMISSION OF 
                   EMERGENCY SITUATION REFUGEES.

       Section 207(c) (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``, permanent partner's,'' after 
     ``spouse's''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' 
     after ``spouse''.

     SEC. 8. ASYLUM.

       Section 208(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''.

     SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES.

       Section 209(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)(3)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.

     SEC. 10. INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.

       (a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.--
     Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(D)(iv), by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(C)(i)(I), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse'';
       (3) in paragraph (6)(E)(ii), by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
       (4) in paragraph (9)(B)(v), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''.
       (b) Waivers.--Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by inserting ``permanent partner,'' 
     after ``spouse,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (12), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''.
       (c) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Health-Related Grounds.--
     Section 212(g)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.
       (d) Waivers of Inadmissibility on Criminal and Related 
     Grounds.--Section 212(h)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by inserting ``permanent partner,'' after 
     ``spouse,''.
       (e) Waiver of Inadmissibility for Misrepresentation.--
     Section 212(i)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``permanent partner,'' after ``spouse,''.

     SEC. 11. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS AWAITING 
                   THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.

       Section 214(r) (8 U.S.C. 1184(r)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 12. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN 
                   ALIEN SPOUSES, PERMANENT PARTNERS, AND SONS AND 
                   DAUGHTERS.

       (a) Section Heading.--
       (1) In general.--The heading for section 216 (8 U.S.C. 
     1186a) is amended by striking ``and sons'' and inserting ``, 
     permanent partners, sons,''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by amending the item relating to section 216 to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 216. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien 
              spouses, permanent partners, sons, and daughters.''.
       (b) In General.--Section 216(a) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partner'' after ``spouse'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,''.

[[Page 1320]]

       (c) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying 
     Marriage Improper.--Section 216(b) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``or Permanent 
     Partnership'' after ``Marriage''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by inserting ``or has ceased to satisfy the criteria 
     for being considered a permanent partnership under this 
     Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after 
     ``spouse''.
       (d) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for 
     Removal of Condition.--Section 216(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(C), 
     (4)(B), and (4)(C), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A), (3)(D), (4)(B), and (4)(C), by 
     inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after ``marriage'' 
     each place it appears.
       (e) Contents of Petition.--Section 216(d)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1186a(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'';
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage'';
       (ii) in subclause (I), by inserting before the comma at the 
     end ``, or is a permanent partnership recognized under this 
     Act''; and
       (iii) in subclause (II)--

       (I) by inserting ``or has not ceased to satisfy the 
     criteria for being considered a permanent partnership under 
     this Act,'' after ``terminated,''; and
       (II) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after 
     ``spouse''; and

       (C) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
       (f) Definitions.--Section 216(g) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage'' each place it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marriage''.

     SEC. 13. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN 
                   ALIEN ENTREPRENEURS, SPOUSES, PERMANENT 
                   PARTNERS, AND CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``, permanent 
     partners,'' after ``spouses''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(B), and (2)(C), by 
     inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each 
     place it appears.
       (b) Termination of Status if Finding That Qualifying 
     Entrepreneurship Improper.--Section 216A(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1186b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse'' in the matter following subparagraph (C).
       (c) Requirements of Timely Petition and Interview for 
     Removal of Condition.--Section 216A(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)) is 
     amended, in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), and (3)(C), by 
     inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 216A(f)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1186b(f)(2)) 
     is amended by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after 
     ``spouse'' each place it appears.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by amending the item relating to section 216A to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 216A. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien 
              entrepreneurs, spouses, permanent partners, and 
              children.''.

     SEC. 14. DEPORTABLE ALIENS.

       Section 237(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partners'' after ``spouses'' each place it appears;
       (2) in subparagraphs (E)(ii), (E)(iii), and (H)(i)(I), by 
     inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'';
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) Permanent partnership fraud.--An alien shall be 
     considered to be deportable as having procured a visa or 
     other documentation by fraud (within the meaning of section 
     212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and to be in the United States in violation 
     of this Act (within the meaning of subparagraph (B)) if--
       ``(i) the alien obtains any admission to the United States 
     with an immigrant visa or other documentation procured on the 
     basis of a permanent partnership entered into less than 2 
     years before such admission and which, within 2 years 
     subsequent to such admission, is terminated because the 
     criteria for permanent partnership are no longer fulfilled, 
     unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security that such permanent 
     partnership was not contracted for the purpose of evading any 
     provision of the immigration laws; or
       ``(ii) it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security that the alien has failed or refused to 
     fulfill the alien's permanent partnership, which the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security determines was made for the 
     purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an 
     immigrant.''; and
       (4) in paragraphs (2)(E)(i) and (3)(C)(ii), by inserting 
     ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' each place it 
     appears.

     SEC. 15. REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.

       Section 240 (8 U.S.C. 1229a) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of subsection (c)(7)(C)(iv), by 
     inserting ``permanent partners,'' after ``spouses,''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse,''.

     SEC. 16. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL; ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       Section 240A(b) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(D), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partner'' after ``spouse''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 17. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF 
                   PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       (a) Prohibition on Adjustment of Status.--Section 245(d) (8 
     U.S.C. 1255(d)) is amended by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage''.
       (b) Avoiding Immigration Fraud.--Section 245(e) (8 U.S.C. 
     1255(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partnership'' after ``marriage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) Paragraph (1) and section 204(g) shall not apply 
     with respect to a permanent partnership if the alien 
     establishes by clear and convincing evidence to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security that--
       ``(i) the permanent partnership was entered into in good 
     faith and in accordance with section 101(a)(52);
       ``(ii) the permanent partnership was not entered into for 
     the purpose of procuring the alien's admission as an 
     immigrant; and
       ``(iii) no fee or other consideration was given (other than 
     a fee or other consideration to an attorney for assistance in 
     preparation of a lawful petition) for the filing of a 
     petition under section 204(a) or 214(d) with respect to the 
     alien permanent partner.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations that 
     provide for only 1 level of administrative appellate review 
     for each alien under subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) Adjustment of Status for Certain Aliens Paying Fee.--
     Section 245(i)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.

     SEC. 18. APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES TO FOR 
                   MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS 
                   REGARDING PERMANENT PARTNERSHIPS.

       Section 275(c) (8 U.S.C. 1325(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage 
     or permanent partnership for the purpose of evading any 
     provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not 
     more than 5 years, fined not more than $250,000, or both.''.

     SEC. 19. REQUIREMENTS AS TO RESIDENCE, GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, 
                   ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 
                   CONSTITUTION.

       Section 316(b) (8 U.S.C. 1427(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse''.

     SEC. 20. NATURALIZATION FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS OF CITIZENS.

       (a) In General.--Section 319 (8 U.S.C. 1430) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marital union'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or permanent partner'' 
     after ``spouse'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marital union'';
       (4) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or permanent partner'' after ``spouse'';
       (B) by inserting ``by the Secretary of Defense'' after ``is 
     authorized''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or permanent partnership'' after 
     ``marital union''; and
       (5) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``or permanent 
     partner'' after ``spouse''.
       (b) Savings Provision.--Section 319(e) (8 U.S.C. 1430(e)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to confer 
     a right for an alien to accompany a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States or to reside abroad with

[[Page 1321]]

     such member, except as authorized by the Secretary of Defense 
     in the member's official orders.''.

     SEC. 21. APPLICATION OF FAMILY UNITY PROVISIONS TO PERMANENT 
                   PARTNERS OF CERTAIN LIFE ACT BENEFICIARIES.

       Section 1504 of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000 (division B 
     of Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763-325) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``, PERMANENT PARTNERS,'' 
     after ``SPOUSES'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, permanent 
     partner,'' after ``spouse''; and
       (3) in each of subsections (b) and (c)--
       (A) in each of the subsection headings, by inserting ``, 
     Permanent Partners,'' after ``Spouses''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, permanent partner,'' after ``spouse'' 
     each place it appears.

     SEC. 22. APPLICATION TO CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT.

       (a) In General.--The first section of Public Law 89-732 (8 
     U.S.C. 1255 note) is amended--
       (1) in the next to last sentence, by inserting ``, 
     permanent partner,'' after ``spouse'' the first 2 places it 
     appears; and
       (2) in the last sentence, by inserting ``, permanent 
     partners,'' after ``spouses''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(51)(D) (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(51)(D)) is amended by striking ``or spouse'' and 
     inserting ``, spouse, or permanent partner''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 311. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower 
Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the 
National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. 
This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish 
along the Lower Mississippi River Area as units of the National Park 
System. I know there are several of my colleagues across the aisle that 
do not want to authorize such studies because they only target one 
area, or because it potentially will cost the Federal Government a 
modest amount to conduct such a study. I can appreciate those 
sentiments, but the good news with this particular study, is that the 
local government feels this is so important to get done, they are 
willing to pay for all or some of the study if necessary, because they 
know these sites deserve Federal recognition as a unit of the National 
Park Service.
  This area in Southeastern Louisiana has contributed much to our 
Nation's history, and there are many stories that have yet to be 
preserved for future generations. Unless Congress acts to preserve 
these historical assets, they will be lost forever. That is why I am 
again for the fourth time, introducing this legislation. It is 
important that this legislation become law and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to enact it.
  In order to be designated as a unit in the National Park System, the 
Department of the Interior must first conduct a special resources study 
to determine whether an area possesses nationally significant natural, 
cultural or recreational resources to be eligible for favorable 
consideration.
  This is exactly what my bill does--it asks the Department of the 
Interior to take the first step in determining what I already know--
that the Lower Mississippi River Area would be a suitable and feasible 
asset to the National Park Service.
  As many from Louisiana are already aware, this area has vast 
historical significance with cultural history. In the 1500s, Spanish 
explorers traveled along the banks of the river. In 1682, Robert de 
LaSalle claimed all the land drained by the area. In 1699, the site of 
the first fortification on the Lower Mississippi river, known as Fort 
Mississippi. Since then, it has been home to ten different 
fortifications, including Fort St. Phillip and Fort Jackson.
  Fort St. Philip, which was originally built in 1749, played a key 
role during the Battle of New Orleans when American soldiers blocked 
the British Navy from going upriver. Fort Jackson was built at the 
request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous 
local Civil War General, P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of 
the famous Civil War battle known as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is 
also referred to as the ``night the war was lost.'' As you can see, 
from a historical perspective, this area has many treasures that 
provide a glimpse into our past. These are treasures that have national 
significance and they should be maintained and preserved.
  In addition, there are many other important and unique attributes to 
this area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and 
levee system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes 
site, to the Plaquemines Bend, and to two National Wildlife Refuges.
  Finally, this area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many 
different cultures have made this area home, including Creoles, 
Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These 
cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for the 
transport of our Nation's energy, which is being produced by these same 
people off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico. They have also created a 
vibrant fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.
  I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent 
addition to the National Park Service. However, the longer Congress 
takes to act, the greater the opportunity for these treasures and their 
rich history to erode away. Unfortunately, this area has weathered the 
passing of several hurricanes, including Katrina and most recently 
Isaac, and is now suffering from the impacts of the BP oil spill. All 
of these events threaten to destroy these historical assets, but this 
need not be the case. These assets need protection and this is the 
first step in securing it. That is why I am re-introducing this bill--
to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
including this area in the system and ultimately to begin the process 
of adding this area as a unit of the National Park Service. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mrs. Fischer):
  S. 317. A bill to require the Inspector General of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to include certain assessments in reports; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at 
the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and 
transparency.
  The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents 
in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and 
sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will 
vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the 
same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor 
do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their 
employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not 
transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from 
ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from 
electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.
  Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D 
beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is 
loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching, 
overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The 
request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What 
can you do to change how they act?
  Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do--
meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the 
agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several 
proposals to address these two areas.
  My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing 
transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings 
agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional 
Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial 
agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance 
documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes

[[Page 1322]]

with the rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. 
Using guidance documents also shields the policy change from being 
reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.
  Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance 
document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by 
expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the 
Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the 
agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal 
responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did 
an end-run around the American people and Congress.
  My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are 
covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations 
would be.
  Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to 
cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them 
for this critical support.
  The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy 
changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come 
here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and 
the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that 
straightforward.
  My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how 
the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is 
developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by 
the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State 
makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be 
honored.
  Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners 
in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law 
specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of 
the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:

       . . . air pollution control at its source is the primary 
     responsibility of States and local governments.

  The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:

       . . . to provide technical and financial assistance to 
     State and local governments in connection with the 
     development and execution of their air pollution prevention 
     and control programs.

  Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
declares:

       It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, 
     and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States 
     to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .

  Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is 
abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second-
class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the 
text of a recent court opinion.
  In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court 
of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:

       (t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for 
     pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for 
     determining how to meet those standards and regulating 
     sources within their borders.

  Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored 
the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at 
us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the 
time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried 
to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.
  I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much 
better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather 
than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,'' 
overreaching Federal plan.
  The court explained it this way:

       . . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial 
     opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the 
     good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified 
     States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the 
     States the initial opportunity to implement the required 
     reductions with respect to sources within their borders.

  The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:

       . . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore, 
     the rule must be vacated.

  That is the holding of the court.
  My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and 
takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the 
past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State 
has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the 
EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be 
responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple 
transparency and a true partner working relationship.
  The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad 
frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean 
the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish 
regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA 
continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming. 
But they do.
  As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises. 
But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as 
a surprise.
  Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing 
statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its 
regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for 
example, requires the agencies to publish:

       During the months of October and April of each year . . . a 
     regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief 
     description of the subject area of any rule which the agency 
     expects to propose . . .

  Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory 
agenda twice a year.
  These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the 
Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA. 
EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in 
the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited 
until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable. 
The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the 
election.
  My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's 
OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory 
agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what 
EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My 
legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of 
whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned 
regulations.
  My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal 
requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be 
honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.
  My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that 
the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't 
be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the 
agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting. 
If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then 
the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the 
deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this 
bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with 
substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last 
year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of 
$20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required 
by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and 
accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according 
to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.
  I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to 
reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt 
frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency 
and they promote responsible government.

[[Page 1323]]

  I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that 
bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal 
agency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 323. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for extended months of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive 
drugs for kidney transplant patients and other renal dialysis 
provisions; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Comprehensive 
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act with 
my colleague Senator Thad Cochran.
  More than 26 million American adults are living with chronic kidney 
disease. Fortunately, many of these individuals are able to improve 
their condition through medication and lifestyle change.
  But more than half of a million Americans live with irreversible 
kidney failure or end-stage renal disease. They have only two choices 
to survive--both of them hard. They can receive regular and frequent 
dialysis or they can receive a kidney transplant.
  In 1972, Congress made a commitment to individuals with end-stage 
renal disease, or ERSD, to cover the treatment they needed, including 
possible transplants, under Medicare, regardless of their age.
  Organ transplantation is a medical success story. Thousands of kidney 
transplants are done every year, and for the patients fortunate enough 
to receive a donated organ, the quality and length of their lives can 
be dramatically improved.
  But not everyone who needs a donated kidney receives one. There are 
currently more than 100,000 Americans on the waiting list for a kidney 
transplant.
  Last year, 15,000 transplants were performed while more than 30,000 
people were added to that waitlist.
  Derek Haney is one of the lucky ones who beat those odds and received 
a kidney transplant.
  Derek is a brave young man raised in Effingham, IL, a small city in 
central Illinois.
  In 2008 the unexpected happened. Derek became chronically ill. After 
regular trips to the hospital, Derek's doctors discovered that his 
kidneys were only functioning at 10 percent. At the age of 23, Derek 
was diagnosed with end stage renal disease.
  For the next two and a half years of his life, Derek underwent 
dialysis. Three times a week he would go in a 4-hour dialysis 
treatment, while he waited for a kidney. The dialysis treatments meant 
that Derek had to put his college plans on hold, but he continued to 
work full-time and never gave up hope.
  On July 15, 2010, Derek got his new kidney.
  Two and a half years later, Derek is still healthy. He is pursuing a 
degree in business administration at a local community college. He 
hopes to transfer soon to a university where he can work toward a CPA 
license.
  Fortunate1y for Derek and his family, Medicare covered the expense of 
dialysis--more than $75,000 a year for 2\1/2\ years. Medicare also paid 
for Derek's kidney transplant at a cost of about $110,000.
  For the last two and a half years, Medicare has covered the expensive 
immunosuppressive medication Derek must take for the rest of his life 
to ensure that his body doesn't reject his new kidney.
  Here's the problem: Derek's Medicare coverage runs out in July.
  Without Medicare coverage, Derek will be burdened with prescription 
drug costs of roughly $1500 per month--more than he and almost any 
family could afford.
  There is an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for people with 
end stage renal disease who, like Derek, are neither elderly nor 
disabled.
  For those transplant recipients, Medicare coverage, including 
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, ends 36 months after 
transplantation.
  If only the need to continue the immunosuppressive drugs also ended 
36 months after transplantation. But it doesn't.
  Without immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many patients 
find themselves back in a risky and frightening place--in need of a new 
kidney.
  A recent New England Journal of Medicine report estimates that 
extending immunosuppressive drug coverage to people who now lose it 
after 36 months will save Medicare approximately $200 million a year by 
helping to prevent kidney rejections.
  Extending immunosuppressive drug coverage saves lives and it saves 
money.
  Sadly, Derek isn't alone. It is estimated that over 45,000 successful 
transplant recipients are at risk of losing their immunosuppressive 
drug coverage.
  This makes no sense morally, medically or economically.
  I am pleased to join my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran, in 
introducing the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for 
Kidney Transplant Patients Act.
  This bipartisan legislation would allow kidney transplant recipients 
to continue Medicare coverage for the purpose of immunosuppressive 
drugs only. All other Medicare coverage would end 36 months after the 
transplant.
  Our legislation will reduce the need for dialysis and repeated kidney 
transplants. It will provide reliable, sustained access to critically 
important, life-saving medications for thousands of Americans.
  In both moral and economic terms, this is the right decision and I 
urge our colleagues to join us in passing this reasonable, targeted, 
lifesaving bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 323

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive 
     Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant 
     Patients Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENDED MONTHS OF COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE 
                   DRUGS FOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT PATIENTS AND OTHER 
                   RENAL DIALYSIS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Medicare Entitlement to Immunosuppressive Drugs for 
     Kidney Transplant Recipients.--
       (1) Kidney transplant recipients.--Section 226A(b)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(except for eligibility for enrollment under part 
     B solely for purposes of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs 
     described in section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' before ``, with the 
     thirty-sixth month''.
       (2) Individuals eligible only for coverage of 
     immunosuppressive drugs.--
       (A) Section 1836 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395o) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Every'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
     Every''; and
       (ii) by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Individuals Eligible for Immunosuppressive Drug 
     Coverage.--Beginning on January 1, 2014, every individual 
     whose insurance benefits under part A have ended (whether 
     before, on, or after such date) by reason of section 
     226A(b)(2) is eligible for enrollment in the insurance 
     program established by this part solely for purposes of 
     coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Sections 1837, 1838, and 1839 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p), 42 U.S.C. 
     1395(q), 42 U.S.C. 1395(r)) are each amended by striking 
     ``1836'' and inserting ``1836(a)'' each place it appears.
       (3) Enrollment for individuals only eligible for coverage 
     of immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1837 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(p)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(m)(1) Any individual who is eligible under section 
     1836(b) to enroll in the medical insurance program 
     established under this part for purposes of coverage of 
     immunosuppressive drugs may enroll only in such manner and 
     form as may be prescribed by regulations, and only during an 
     enrollment period described in this subsection.
       ``(2) An individual described in paragraph (1) may enroll 
     beginning on the first day of the third month before the 
     month in which the individual first satisfies section 
     1836(b).
       ``(3) An individual described in paragraph (1) whose 
     entitlement for hospital insurance benefits under part A ends 
     by reason of section 226A(b)(2) on or after January 1, 2014, 
     shall be deemed to have enrolled in the medical insurance 
     program established by this

[[Page 1324]]

     part for purposes of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.''.
       (4) Coverage period for individuals only eligible for 
     coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1838 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395q) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) In the case of an individual described in section 
     1836(b), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(1) In the case of such an individual who is deemed to 
     have enrolled in part B for coverage of immunosuppressive 
     drugs under section 1837(m)(3), such individual's coverage 
     period shall begin on the first day of the month in which the 
     individual first satisfies section 1836(b).
       ``(2) In the case of such an individual who enrolls in part 
     B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 
     1837(m)(2), such individual's coverage period shall begin on 
     the first day of the month in which the individual first 
     satisfies section 1836(b) or the month following the month in 
     which the individual so enrolls, whichever is later.
       ``(3) The provisions of subsections (b) and (d) shall apply 
     with respect to an individual described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2).
       ``(4) In addition to the reasons for termination under 
     subsection (b), the coverage period of an individual 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall end when the 
     individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title 
     under section 226(a), 226(b), or 226A.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--Section 1838(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395q(b)) is amended, in the matter 
     following paragraph (2), by adding ``or section 1837(m)(3)'' 
     after ``section 1837(f)'' each place it appears.
       (5) Premiums for individuals only eligible for coverage of 
     immunosuppressive drugs.--Section 1839 of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``No increase in the premium shall be effected 
     for individuals who are enrolled pursuant to section 1836(b) 
     for coverage only of immunosuppressive drugs.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Determination of Premium for Individuals Only 
     Eligible for Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs.--The 
     Secretary shall, during September of each year, determine and 
     promulgate a monthly premium rate for the succeeding calendar 
     year for individuals who enroll only for the purpose of 
     coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b). 
     Such premium shall be equal to 35 percent of the monthly 
     actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over, determined 
     according to paragraph (1), for that succeeding calendar 
     year. The monthly premium of each individual enrolled for 
     coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b) for 
     each month shall be the amount promulgated in this 
     subsection. Such amount shall be adjusted in accordance with 
     subsections (c) and (f).''.
       (6) Government contribution.--Section 1844(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; plus'';
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) a Government contribution equal to the estimated 
     aggregate reduction in premiums payable under part B that 
     results from establishing the premium at 35 percent of the 
     actuarial rate under section 1839(j) instead of 50 percent of 
     the actuarial rate for individuals who enroll only for the 
     purpose of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 
     1836(b).''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following flush matter:
     ``The Government contribution under paragraph (4) shall be 
     treated as premiums payable and deposited for purposes of 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).''.
       (7) Extension of secondary payer requirements for esrd 
     beneficiaries eligible for coverage of immunosuppressive 
     drugs.--Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395(y)(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``With regard to immunosuppressive 
     drugs furnished to an individual who enrolls for the purpose 
     of coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b) 
     on or after January 1, 2014, this subparagraph shall apply 
     without regard to any time limitation, except that when such 
     individual becomes entitled to benefits under this title 
     under sections 226(a) or 226(b), or entitled to or eligible 
     for benefits under this title under section 226A, the 
     provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B), and the time 
     limitations under this subparagraph, respectively, shall 
     apply.''.
       (8) Ensuring coverage under the medicare savings program.--
     Section 1905(p)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(p)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``or an individual 
     who is enrolled under part B for the purpose of coverage of 
     immunosuppressive drugs under section 1836(b)'' after 
     ``section 1818''.
       (9) Part d.--Section 1860D-1(a)(3)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(a)(3)(A)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(but not including an individual enrolled solely 
     for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under section 
     1836(b))'' before the period at the end.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Burr, 
        Mr. Coburn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Corker, Mr. 
        Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Risch, Mr. Kirk, Mr. 
        Coats, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Moran, Mr. Portman, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
        Toomey, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. 
        Paul, Mr. Lee, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Heller, Mr. Scott, Mr. Flake, 
        Mr. Cruz, and Mrs. Fischer):
  S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 7

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds 
     of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of 
     Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of 
     outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
       ``Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United 
     States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of 
     such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and 
     sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law 
     for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll 
     call vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which--
       ``(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
       ``(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross 
     domestic product of the United States for the calendar year 
     ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
       ``Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases 
     the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of 
     revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly 
     chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll 
     call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in 
     revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any 
     increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of 
     any tax.
       ``Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly 
     chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall 
     provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
       ``Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of 
     sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year 
     in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in 
     effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn 
     Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a 
     specific excess by a roll call vote.
       ``Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of 
     sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in 
     which the United States is engaged in a military conflict 
     that causes an imminent and serious military threat to 
     national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the 
     duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a 
     roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited 
     to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made 
     necessary by the identified military conflict.
       ``Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State 
     shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.
       ``Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except those for repayment of debt 
     principal.
       ``Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and 
     implement this article

[[Page 1325]]

     by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of 
     outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
       ``Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.''.

                          ____________________