End Gun Trafficking Act of 2008

Today, I am joined by the junior Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the Travelers' Privacy Protection Act of 2008. This bill restores privacy for law-abiding Americans who, under current administration policy, may be required to give customs agents unfettered access to the contents of their laptop computers and other electronic devices when they return from overseas travel.

There is a compelling and immediate need for this legislation. Over the last two years, reports have surfaced that customs agents have been requiring American citizens and others lawfully residing in the U.S. to turn over their cell phones or give them the passwords to their laptops. The travelers have been forced to wait for hours while customs agents reviewed and sometimes copied the contents of the electronic devices. In some cases, the laptops or cell phones were confiscated, and returned weeks or even months later, with no explanation.

When the practice was challenged in court, the administration argued that it can search the contents of American travelers' laptops without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever, because a laptop is no different than any other ``closed container.'' In other words, according to this administration, there is no difference between rifling through the contents of your suitcase, and logging on to your laptop, opening your files, and reviewing your photographs, medical records, financial records, e-mails, letters, journals, work product, or an electronic record of all the Web sites you have visited.

I am willing to bet that most Americans would disagree. Americans understand the importance of security at the borders, and the vast majority of them accept that the government is entitled to look through their suitcases when they are returning from an overseas trip. But I say to my colleagues: try asking your constituents whether the government has a right to open their laptops, read their documents and e-mails, look at their photographs, and examine the Web sites they have visited--all without any suspicion of wrongdoing--and see what they say. I think you'll hear the same thing that I have heard: ``Not in the United States of America.''

In June of this year, I held a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue. At this hearing, we learned about the effect of suspicionless electronic border searches on American businesses. The Executive Director for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives testified that, in a survey of ACTE members, 7 out of 100 respondents had experienced seizures of their laptops or other electronic equipment. Many companies are now taking expensive and burdensome measures to protect their electronic information from forced disclosure at the border. The administration's intrusive border practices thus come with a hefty price tag for the American business sector, at a time when the economy can ill afford it.

We also heard disturbing evidence suggesting that Muslim Americans and Americans of Arab or South Asian descent are being targeted for these invasive searches. Many travelers from these backgrounds who have been subject to electronic searches have also been asked about their religious and political views, including why they chose to convert to Islam, what they think about Jews, and their views of the candidates in the upcoming election. This questioning is deeply disturbing in its own right. It also strongly suggests that some border searches are being based, at least in part, on impermissible factors.

At the same time it was claiming the right to look at all of the information Americans carry with them across the border, the administration was refusing to provide Americans or Congress with information about its policies for border searches. Requests by the public and members of Congress were steadfastly ignored. DHS declined my invitation to send a witness to the hearing, claiming that its preferred witness was unavailable on that day. But after the hearing sparked a flurry of press coverage and major newspapers criticized DHS for its secrecy, the agency made public a written policy for border searches dated July 16, 2008.

The DHS policy is truly alarming in the sweeping authority it claims. According to the policy, customs agents may ``analyze and review'' the information in Americans' laptops and other electronic devices ``absent individualized suspicion.'' As part of this search authority, customs agents may ``detain'' the electronic device for an unspecified period of time, take it off-site, make copies of its contents, and send the equipment or the copies to other agencies or even private individuals in some cases. Although the policy purports to require probable cause to ``seize'' a laptop, as opposed to merely searching it, this safeguard is almost meaningless given that DHS's definition of ``search'' includes the right to ``detain'' the laptop indefinitely. Moreover the policy exempts officers' written notes from any constraints, allowing customs agents to transcribe an electronic document verbatim and keep it forever without any level of suspicion.

Defenders of this policy outside the administration are hard to find. Major newspapers across the country, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a host of other national and local outlets, have published editorials condemning the policy and urging Congress to act. As USA Today put it: ``[T]he notion that the government can arbitrarily have a free crack at your e-mail, Web searches and other personal electronic data is chilling. Given the government's abysmal record of safeguarding private data, it's no wonder that business and civil liberties groups are protesting.'' In my home state of Wisconsin, the Green Bay Press-Gazette put it this way: ``[T]he fact that this policy exists . . . is an affront to the core values of the United States of America.''

In the fact of this public outcry, DHS has reacted like a traffic officer standing by a 20-car pile-up and telling onlookers ``Nothing to see here--move along.'' The agency claims that its July 16 policy spells out the practice followed by customs agents for years and across administration. But that just isn't true. The Customs Directive that governed border searches of documents through the end of the Clinton Administration stated that Customs agents could glance at documents-- but not read them--``to see if they appear to be merchandise.'' At that point, ``reasonable suspicion [was] required for read and continued detention'' of the documents. The reading of personal correspondence other than merchandise was expressly prohibited. This administration's policy authorizing ``review and analysis'' of any and all electronic documents without a shred of suspicion thus represents a 180 degree turnaround from previous policy.

DHS alternatively defends its policy by arguing that the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of Americans' laptops is necessary to capture terrorists and criminals. Yet the few specific examples DHS has seen fit to give have all been cases in which the search was anything but suspicionless. For example, in one instance DHS has cited, the laptop search took place after customs agents received a tip that the traveler was a smuggler and discovered $79,000 in unlawful U.S. currency in his belongings. Despite many opportunities to do so, DHS has yet to identify a single example in which a search that was conducted ``absent individualized suspicion'' resulted in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal or terrorist.

This brings me to my next point. Both Secretary Chertoff and the Deputy Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection have tried to downplay the extent of privacy violations by pointing out that DHS has limited resources for conducting electronic searches at the border. That may be true, but it hardly justifies suspicionless searches. To the contrary, the limited nature of these resources makes it all the more important to direct them toward people who actually do present some objective basis for suspicion. As the DHS examples confirm, these are the cases in which electronic searches are most likely to yield results. Using our limited resources to search the laptops of law- abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion is frankly irresponsible.

This is not simply a matter of what the Constitution protects or allows. In fact, a few lower courts have agreed with the administration that the Fourth Amendment does not protect Americans against suspicionless searches of their laptops at the border. I happen to believe that these decisions incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent, but ultimately, that is beside the point. Not everything that comports with the Constitution is sound policy. A government practice can satisfy minimum constitutional requirements and still violate Americans' expectations for what they want and deserve from their government. In those cases, it is up to Congress to act.

The bill I am introducing today would require DHS agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching the contents of laptops or other electronic equipment carried by U.S. citizens or other lawful residents of the U.S. ``Reasonable suspicion'' is a lower standard than ``probable cause''; it simply requires DHS to have an objective basis for suspecting that a particular person is engaged in illegal behavior. No less should be required when the government seeks to encroach on such a significant privacy interest.

Like the current DHS policy, the bill I am introducing requires probable cause in order for DHS agents to seize electronic equipment lent. Unlike the current policy, however, the bill defines ``seize'' in a manner than is consistent with both legal precedent and common sense. If DHS keeps your laptop or any of its contents for longer than 24 hours, there has clearly been a seizure, and the bill recognizes this. The bill also reinforces the probable cause requirement by requiring DHS to obtain a warrant, while allowing DHS to hold on to the equipment pending a ruling on the warrant application.

Most of the information DHS will review, even under a reasonable suspicion standard, will prove innocuous. Recognizing this, the bill contains provisions to protect law-abiding Americans' privacy by strictly limiting disclosure of information that DHS acquires through electronic border searches. The only disclosures that are permitted in the absence of warrant or court order are limited disclosures to other federal, state, or local government agencies. Those agencies in turn may apply for a warrant--or, if the laptop appears to contain foreign intelligence information, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Order--to seize the equipment.

If DHS damages the electronic equipment in the course of a search, the

agency must compensate the owner for any resulting economic loss. The bill requires DHS to establish an administrative claims process to that end. Awards will be paid from agency funds, ensuring that the bill is deficit-neutral.

The bill prohibits profiling based on race, ethnic, religion, or national origin. Profiling based on these characteristics has no place in our society. It is repugnant to our values as a pluralistic nation, and it is counterproductive as a matter of law enforcement. At the hearing I held on this issue, all of the witnesses, those invited by myself and those invited by Senator Brownback, agreed at that point.

Finally, the bill contains provisions to ensure that DHS provides the information about its policies and practices that Congress needs and that the public is entitled to have. The agency must provide Congress and the public with any past, existing, or future policies relating to electronic border searches, as well as information about the implementation of those policies. Our ability to know what DHS claims the right to do at the border should never depend on whether DHS chooses to send a witness to a congressional hearing.

Taken together, these provisions reverse this administration's departure from previous policy and, more importantly, bring the government's practices at the border back in line with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding Americans. Furthermore, they enhance the security of our borders by focusing the government's resources where they can do the most good. And they will enable all of us in this body to look our constituents in the eyes and say, ``You're right--that doesn't happen in the United States of America.''

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues give this bill the enthusiastic support it deserves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in a democracy, no right is more important than the right to vote; in our democracy, no right has been so dearly won. This country was founded on the idea that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle codified in the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States.'' From the Civil War through the women's suffrage movement through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through the 26th Amendment, the continuing expansion of the franchise, a broadening of who ``we the people'' are, is one of our great American stories.

So today I will introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. This bill will guarantee that citizens who are not incarcerated have the right to vote in Federal elections. I am pleased that the Senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Whitehouse, and the Senator from Maryland, Sen. Cardin, have agreed to be a cosponsor.

Once, only wealthy White men could vote in this country. Once, African Americans, ethnic minorities, women, young people, the poor, and the uneducated were all excluded. Today, we look back at those times and wonder how our country could have denied its citizens such a fundamental right for so long. And yet today, we continue to disenfranchise an estimated 4 million of our fellow citizens who were convicted of felonies but are no longer in prison. Two million of these people have fully served their sentences, and the other two million are on probation, parole, or supervised release. These people are living and working in the community, paying taxes, and contributing to society. But they cannot vote.

At this time, 10 states still strip people who have completed their sentence--who have paid their debt to society--of their right to vote. Some 35 States deny the vote to people on parole, and 30 of those States also deny the vote to people on probation. I believe that the practice of stripping our fellow citizens of their voting rights is un- American. It weakens our democracy. It is an anachronism, one of the last vestiges of a medieval jurisprudence that declared convicted criminals to be outlaws, irrevocably expelled from society.

This principle was called ``civil death'' and in medieval Europe, it was reserved for the worst crimes. Yet today, here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we continue to sentence 4 million people-- people who have served their time, people who are contributing members of society--to civil death.

One might ask how something as undemocratic as civil death could have survived to the present day. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the practice of disenfranchising people with felony convictions has an explicitly racist history. Like the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and the poll tax, civil death became a tool of Jim Crow.

Across the country, 13 percent of African-American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. As of 2004, in 14 states, felony disenfranchisement provisions had stripped more than 10 percent of the entire African-American voting-age population of the right to vote. In 4 states, they had disenfranchise more than 20 percent of eligible African-American voters.

The architects of Jim Crow would be proud of their handiwork, and how it has lasted long after the rest of their evil system was dismantled. The rest of us should be ashamed, and yes, outraged. If we believe in redemption, we should be outraged. Because civil death has denied 4 million Americans a chance at redemption. If we believe in progress, we should be outraged. Because civil death keeps this country chained to the worst moments of our past. If we believe in democracy, we should be outraged. Because civil death strikes at the heart of our democracy.

There is a growing movement across the country to expand the franchise and restore voting rights to people coming out of prison and reentering the community. In the last decade, 16 States have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. This bill continues that movement. It provides that the right to vote for candidates for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because a person has been convicted of a crime unless that person is actually in prison serving a felony sentence. It gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce that right. And it gives a person whose rights are being violated a right to go to court to get relief.

The bill also requires Federal and State officials to notify individuals of their right to vote once their sentences have been served. This is an important part of the bill, given the long history of these civil death provisions. Even after this bill passes, many ex- offenders may not know their rights, and we should take affirmative steps to make sure that they do. No one should be disenfranchised because of lack of information.

Upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

The vote is the powerful instrument ever devised by man for

breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls

which imprison men because they are different from other men.

When prisoners return to their communities after serving their sentences, we expect and hope that they will reintegrate themselves into society as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If our country wants ex-offenders to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then we need to restore this most fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security--the first comprehensive DHS authorization bill introduced in the Senate in the 5-year history of this agency created in response to the attacks of 9/11.

This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, ranking member Senator Susan Collins, who has long been one of the Senate's great leaders in our efforts to make our nation more secure.

I understand there is not time in this session for full consideration and passage of this legislation but we offer it as a blueprint for the next administration and the 111th Congress outlining key areas of improvement we think can make DHS more efficient and effective in its mission to safeguard our homeland.

Before I offer more detail on this bill, I would like to briefly review the history of the Department that has brought us to where we are today.

The attacks of 9/11 made it clear that oceans are no longer a defense against those who mean to harm our Nation. After a series of hearings, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposed legislation pulling more than 22 different agencies responsible for different areas of homeland defense into one Department whose overarching mission was the protection of the American people.

Success was not guaranteed. The administration and many in Congress at first opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we persevered in our mission and President Bush signed legislation creating the Department in January 2003.

We all knew at the time that creating a new Department with a single identity out of 22 different agencies would be difficult. Each agency came into the Department with its own culture--not to mention its own procurement, personnel and computer systems. In some cases, they came after having been neglected in other Departments where homeland security had been an afterthought. There was, and remains, much work to be done.

But over the past 5 years, the men and women who work at the Department, under the leadership first of Secretary Tom Ridge and now of Michael Chertoff, have worked hard, often under difficult circumstances, to systematically improve the Nation's security.

Our committee has also written and helped pass several pieces of important legislation to strengthen and guide DHS as it evolved into a more mature agency. I would like to briefly mention some of them because I am proud of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's work under former Chairman Susan Collins and during my own tenure as chairman, because we truly worked as partners across party lines.

In the 108th Congress, our committee led the effort to enact the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission--a Commission which, had been created through the Committee's work in the previous Congress. The resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 implemented most of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a number directed at the work of the new Department.

In the 109th Congress, in the wake of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, our committee conducted a far-reaching investigation into the actions at all levels of government that contributed to the disastrous response to the hurricane.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held 22 hearings, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and issued a comprehensive, 700-page report on what went wrong.

The committee's findings on shortcomings at FEMA and DHS led us to draft the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which strengthened and elevated FEMA within the Department, brought together

into a single agency those charged with preparing for disasters with those responsible for responding to them; required planning for catastrophic events; and helped ensure that the resources of the whole Department would be available in a catastrophe.

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was signed into law in October 2006, and the results of that Act can be seen in the much improved--though admittedly still imperfect--Federal response to the series of recent tornadoes in the Midwest and devastating hurricanes that have hit the Gulf Coast.

In the 109th Congress, our Committee helped draft and pass the SAFE Ports Act, to strengthen the Department's port security efforts, and we passed legislation to provide DHS authority to better secure dangerous chemical facilities.

In this Congress, after many hearings and much hard work, legislation implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was signed into law. This legislation addressed a diverse array of issues at DHS, from homeland security grants to information sharing to interoperable communications to transportation security.

So while we offer this authorization bill as DHS readies for its sixth year as a department--and its first Presidential transition--this committee has been working hard all along to give DHS both the support it needed and the oversight--sometimes harsh--to steadily improve its capacity to carry out its critical mission.

With this authorization act we continue that important work and I would like to touch on key portions of the bill.

This bill can be summarized under three major themes: integration, accountability, and effectiveness.

As I have already noted, we knew when we passed the Homeland Security Act that the process of creating a new, unified Department out of many diverse component agencies would be both challenging and time consuming--and the process is not yet complete. Therefore, a number of provisions of this bill would improve the integration of the Department. These provisions are collectively intended to help the Department to perform its missions at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts.

First, the bill would create an Under Secretary for Policy, to ensure that there is policy coordination across the Department.

The bill would also require the Secretary to develop and maintain the capability to coordinate operations and strategically plan across all of the component organizations of the Department. To this end, it permits the establishment of an Office of Operations Coordination and Planning within the Department, making it easier for the staffs of agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and FEMA to work together on key operational activities, such as planning for the upcoming DHS transition.

The bill would enhance the statutory authorities of the Chief Information Officer, allowing for greater control over IT investments in the Department. It also gives the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of DHS new authority to coordinate the international activities of the Department. The bill would establish the Office of the Chief Learning Officer, who would coordinate training and workforce development activities on a Department-wide basis.

Finally, the bill would require the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is long overdue. Currently, the Department is spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the National Capital Region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. The deplorable condition of the present headquarters complex also makes it harder for DHS to recruit and retain talented professionals--directly affecting homeland security--and I will continue to push Congress and the administration to get the funding necessary for the headquarters consolidation to proceed.

The second major theme of the bill is accountability. The bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance oversight and ensure that the Department is held accountable for the decisions that it makes.

The bill requires that DHS have certified program managers for all major acquisition programs, and directs the Department to report to Congress on its use of various contracting authorities and on task orders within two of its major acquisition vehicles.

The bill creates a statutory requirement for a formal investment review process within the Department, and for investments where there are significant technological challenges, requires a formal testing and evaluation process prior to investment. These provisions will help to ensure that the Department does not again move forward with costly acquisitions without first proving that the underlying technology will work.

The bill also requires reports to Congress on a number of other activities, including the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and the Department's efforts to improve minority representation among its employees.

The third major theme of the bill is effectiveness. There are a number of homeland security mission areas where the Federal government needs new or expanded authorities to effectively address threats that face us.

For example, the bill addresses growing concerns about the cybersecurity threat by establishing a robust National Cyber Security Center with the mission of coordinating and enhancing Federal efforts to protect government networks, and by enhancing the statutory authorities of the National Cyber Security Division.

The bill would enhance our nation's border security by authorizing an increase in the number of CBP officers and ensuring that they receive sufficient and appropriate training. It also recognizes the essential work of the agriculture specialists at the border, who perform plant inspections and help protect against both devastating pests and potential bioterrorism events, authorizes an increase in the number of agriculture specialists and requires measures to improve their recruitment and retention.

The bill addresses the threat of improvised explosive devices, IEDs, by including provisions that would authorize the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, as well as authorize an increase in its budget to $25 million. OBP would lead bombing prevention activities within DHS, and would coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that existing gaps in Federal bombing prevention efforts are filled.

Building upon changes already being implemented in the Post Katrina Act, the bill also seeks to continue improvement in the Nation's preparedness. It would require that DHS work with other Federal agencies to develop plans for responding to potential catastrophic scenarios, and would authorize a pilot program to assign National Guard planners to State emergency planning offices, to foster better State- Federal planning coordination. In addition, it would authorize the Metropolitan Medical Rescue System to assist States and localities prepare for mass casualty events. It would reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides grants to States for mitigation measures designed to reduce losses in disasters.

Collectively the measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its missions and become a more mature and effective entity.

I believe that the reforms and enhancements contained in this legislation, along with continued, vigorous oversight, will make DHS a stronger agency in the years to come. And reform, not thoughtless reorganization, is the course future Ccngresses should follow when it comes to DHS. Five years into its mission, and ignoring some noticeable improvements in its performance, there are still those who believe DHS should be chopped up and its parts shipped off to other agencies.

I believe that is exactly the wrong course to take. It makes no sense to disrupt the development of the Department, and weaken the hand of the next Secretary, at a time when the challenges she or he must face, from preventing nuclear terrorism, to securing our borders, to ensuring more effective responses to catastropies of all kinds remain daunting. It took decades for the Department of Defense to become a

coherent whole, and its work is still not complete. Just as DHS and its component arts are beginning to gel into an effective organization ready to deal with disasters visited upon our nation by nature or terrorists, it makes no sense to plunge responsibility for our homeland back into the chaos that existed before 9/11.

This is a course I have fought and will fight in the years to come.

In their report to the nation, the 9/11 Commissioners wrote: ``The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and the 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/11.''

The Department of Homeland Security was part of that response to the new dangers we face and must remain so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, in the midst of this devastating economic crisis, continues to plague more and more Americans every day--hunger. Although hunger in this country may not be as obvious as it is in other nations, it nonetheless exists and has devastating consequences for those it affects. It weakens the body, making it more susceptible to illness. It impedes child development and reduces a child's ability to learn. It saps valuable energy, resulting in lowered productivity and less earning potential. In short, hunger has a devastating effect on those it touches.

In 2006 alone, the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that when the figures for 2007 and 2008 are released, the number of Americans living with hunger will be even greater.

Unfortunately, for these millions of Americans facing hunger, the ability to afford the food they so desperately need has not become any easier over the past year. According to the Department of Labor, the cost of food at home rose 7.1 percent from July 2007 to July 2008. But, for the nearly 28 million Americans receiving food stamps, the effects of food price inflation during that time period were even more devastating. From July 2007 to July 2008, the cost of the ``Thrifty Food Plan''--the Government's estimate of what constitutes a nutritious, minimal cost meal plan--rose by 10 percent. As a result, the benefits currently provided to food stamp participants are not enough to even cover the cost of this minimally adequate diet.

Each summer, the United States Department of Agriculture sets new food stamp benefit levels based on the average of the previous year's food price inflation. However, these new benefit levels are not implemented until the first day of October each year, by which time they already lag behind current prices. For instance, when updated food stamp benefit levels were provided to an average family of four in October 2007, they were already lagging $12.20 behind the monthly cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. By July of this year, that same family of four was receiving $56 per month less than they needed to afford the cost of this minimal diet. for such low-income families, already facing rising home energy and transportation costs, and having non-negotiable expenditures like rent or mortgage payments and child care expenses needing to be paid, food purchases are often the only area of the monthly budget where cuts can be made.

But, food price inflation is not only affecting the price families are paying for food at home. It is also affecting the prices schools are paying for foods provided through child nutrition programs like school breakfasts, lunches, and after-school snack programs. While the Federal Government does reimburse schools for the costs of providing these programs to children from low-income families, with ever rising food prices, these reimbursements are not enough to cover the expenses of providing these meals.

Like food stamps, school meal reimbursement rates are updated every

summer to account for inflation. But, by the time the school year begins, these reimbursements already lag behind the true cost of producing the meal. In fact, a recent survey by the School Nutrition Association found that 88 percent of responding school districts indicated that Federal reimbursement rates were not sufficient to cover the costs of producing a meal during the 2007/08 school year. As a result, 73 percent of these school districts said they plan to increase the price other students pay for food services in this coming school year to make up for the increased costs.

Congress can and must do more to ensure that Federal nutrition assistance programs can adequately cover the costs of food for those most in need. That's why today I'm pleased to introduce the National Hunger Relief Act of 2008. This act will make critical changes needed to help low-income families and schools cover the costs of purchasing healthy, nutritious foods.

Under this act, when setting benefit levels for food stamps, Congress would anticipate the food price inflation that will occur in the coming fiscal year, and would act to offset it by setting a higher benefit rate for October 1 than is currently provided. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, recipients would receive 102 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. By fiscal year 2012, this benefit rate would be ramped up to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. This change would be consistent with the way food stamp benefits were regularly adjusted for food price inflation for many years prior to 1996. By providing this higher benefit rate, food stamp benefits would be adequate to meet rising food prices over the course of the following year. As a result, low-income families participating in the food stamp program would have the necessary resources to purchase the foods their families need and be able to ensure that their families do not suffer from the adverse effects of hunger.

To solve the problem of inadequate reimbursement rates for certain child nutrition programs, this bill would provide for semi-annual reimbursement rate adjustments. In addition to the current annual update in July to reimbursement rates for school meal programs, reimbursement rates would also be adjusted for inflation each January. As a result of this change, reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Milk Program, the Child and Adult Day Care Program, and the Summer Food Service Program would more accurately reflect the costs that schools or service providers incur to provide foods through these programs. This, in turn, would help to keep the prices charged for foods provided to other children at schools more in line with the costs of procuring and providing those foods.

I am introducing this legislation today because it is critically important to begin the dialogue on finding ways to ensure that our nutrition assistance programs can continue to prevent hunger by providing necessary nourishment to Americans of all ages. However, I also recognize that we have a challenge to ensure that these nutrition assistance programs can operate in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible while adequately serving the more than 35.5 million Americans who continue to be plagued by the threat of hunger. Over the coming months, as we continue to work on ways to eradicate hunger in this Nation and begin to consider the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I will continue seeking out ways to make reforms to this and other nutrition assistance legislation to ensure that--at the end of the day--these programs can continue to effectively reach those most in need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Since 1984, Congressionally- designated National Heritage Areas have fostered partnerships between the public and private sectors for undertaking preservation, educational, and recreational initiatives in diverse regions throughout the country. Through these efforts, National Heritage Areas have helped to protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources while promoting local economic development. Today, I am proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to propose a bill that would grant national recognition to the Susquehanna Gateway region, an area that has played a key role in the development of our nation's cultural, political, and economic identity.

While the region boasts an impressive catalogue of historic and scenic resources, perhaps two examples in particular best underscore how the distinct traditions and natural landscape of the Susquehanna Gateway offer an insight into the broader American experience. For centuries, the Susquehanna River, which forms a natural border between Pennsylvania's York and Lancaster Counties and represents the heart of the proposed National Heritage Area, has been at the center of agricultural, industrial, and recreational activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The river provided colonial settlers with a trading route to Native American communities. It was an important shipping lane for timber, iron, coal, and agricultural products throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. With the decline of industry and commercial shipping in the region, the river today has assumed a new identity as a center of recreation for millions of boaters, fishermen, hunters, birders, and others. In tracing these developments, we recognize that the story of the Susquehanna River Valley reflects much of the American story. Passing the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act will allow more Americans to discover and better appreciate this narrative.

No less than in this tremendous natural resource, the Susquehanna Gateway region's national significance is rooted in its populace. As the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was founded in the spirit of providing refuge to those suffering religious and cultural persecution, so did York and Lancaster Counties offer a home to German Baptist immigrants who created Amish and Mennonite farming communities. By their example of humility, hard work, environmental stewardship, and respect for others, these ``Plain'' people continue to inspire millions of Americans. Designating the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is the proper way to acknowledge their contributions to the story of American agriculture and its transformative influence on the natural landscape.

Finally, I would like to recognize the leadership of Mark Platts, President of the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, and his colleague Jonathan Pinkerton, Deputy Director. Through their tireless efforts, they have developed a feasibility study for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area that meets the National Parks Service's ten interim criteria for designation of a National Heritage Area. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act soon so that the region can begin to play a national role in sharing America's story.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on a subject that is never far from the minds of citizens in my home State of Florida and others living along our coasts and in tornado alley: the threat of windstorms, and the havoc that these events can wreak on our communities.

We were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike grew into monster storms and crossed the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, leaving a trail of misery in their wake. In Florida this year, these storms, along with Tropical Storm Fay and Hurricane Hanna, reminded us of our vulnerability in the face of Mother Nature. We are not out of the woods yet. Hurricane season lasts for another two months, and other severe storms can generate damaging tornadoes at any time of year. In fact, more than 2,000 tornadoes had hit the United States by mid-September, causing more than 120 fatalities and making 2008 the deadliest year for windstorm-related fatalities in a decade.

Although windstorms are a perpetual hazard, particularly in Florida, we have learned a great deal from these events and have taken steps to make our homes, businesses, and infrastructure more resilient. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida and revealed a number of problems with how we designed and constructed buildings in areas subject to high winds. The lessons learned from Andrew drove the adoption of stronger buiding codes in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in 1994, codes that still serve as models for the Nation. In 2001, Florida's State legislature adopted a statewide building code, which made building requirements stronger and more consistent across the state.

These actions have already started paying dividends. In 2004, when Hurricane Charley made landfall near Captiva Island as a Category 4 hurricane, communities across Southwest Florida suffered tremendous damage from high winds and floodwaters. In Charlotte County alone, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, estimated that 80 percent of the buildings were damaged and all mobile homes were destroyed. Across the Florida peninsula, 30 deaths were linked to the storm and property damage was estimated at $14.6 billion. But there was some positive news to be found amongst the devastation. Government and private-sector experts who reviewed Charley's damage found that homes designed and constructed with the stronger, post-Andrew building codes performed well, even in Punta Gorda, one of the hardest-hit areas. There can be no doubt that many lives were saved and millions in additional damages were avoided as a direct consequence of earlier decisions to build stronger and safer.

While our experience in Charley shows that we are on the right track in antiipating and avoiding windstorm impacts, we cannot rest on our laurels. Millions in Florida and across our Nation live in structures built either before there was a building code in effect or before important wind-resistant materials and practices became required. Much work remains to find feasible and cost-effective ways to retrofit these older structures, and to educate our citizens on the need to take actions now to reduce their vulnerability to future windstorms.

To help address these outstanding needs, I am introducing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Reauthorization Act of 2008. This legislation would extend and enhance the National Windstorm Impact Reduction program, the primary goal of which is to achieve major, measurable reductions in losses of life and property from windstorms.

This is a program that I have a long history of supporting. In July 2004--just weeks before four hurricanes, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne struck my State--I introduced the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This bill sought to focus the Federal efforts to identify wind hazards and assess and mitigate windstorm impacts. In the wake of the 2004 hurricanes, Congress saw the need to better coordinate and invest in wind-related research and mitigation, and passed separate legislation establishing NWIRP in October of that year. At that time, Congress's vision was for NWIRP to improve our understanding of windstorms and then mitigate potential impacts through nationwide data collection and analysis, risk assessment, outreach, technology transfer, and research and development.

Since its enactment in 2004, NWIRP has struggled to get off of the ground. The Bush Administration has not adequately supported the development and implementation of the program, failing to request any appropriations for

NWIRP activities at the primary agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and FEMA. Despite explicit language from Congress in its report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration has refused to allocate the more than $11 million designated for NWIRP. I find this lack of cooperation on NWIRP, a program that can help save lives and avoid property damage, to be particularly troubling as millions of people on the Gulf Coast and in Florida struggle to recover from recent hurricanes.

While I will continue my efforts to obtain additional funding for NWIRP, Congress must help by extending the program past its expiration on September 30th of this year. My legislation would extend NWIRP through 2013, and make several other programmatic changes that are needed to put the program on a stronger footing moving forward.

I propose shifting primary authority and responsibility for managing NWIRP from the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy to NIST, an agency that has excelled in leading the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program since 2004. My legislation would also clarify the roles and responsibilities of all Federal agencies participating on NWIRP's Interagency Working Group on Windstorm Impact Reduction. Three Federal agencies with current missions that provide valuable data or expertise that support NWIRP's goals will be added to the program, namely the Department of Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lastly, the legislation would set a deadline for NIST to assemble the National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, a group charged with providing guidance to NIST and the Interagency Working Group on windstorm-related research, mitigation, outreach, and other program priorities. The Advisory Committee will include representatives from a broad array of NWIRP stakeholders, including state and local governments and experts from the research, technology transfer, building design and construction, insurance, and finance communities.

I did not want to return to Florida this fall without taking action to keep us focused on reducing the impacts of windstorms on our citizens and our economy. That is why I felt it important to propose this legislation to extend, revamp, and revitalize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

In closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas, who is introducing a companion measure in the U.S. House of Representatives today. Kansas is particularly vulnerable to the devastation that tornados and hailstorms can cause, so I know that he shares my desire to ensure that our constituents have innovative, effective, and affordable tools available to help reduce their vulnerability to windstorms. I also understand that three members of the Florida delegation in the House, Representatives Alcee Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mario Diaz-Balart, are original cosponsors of Representative Moore's bill. In addition to demonstrating how important this legislation is to the State of the Florida and the Nation, I welcome the bipartisan support that these cosponsors provide. I look forward to working with Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Hutchison and the other members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to debate this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program Act, S. 3606, which would extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program until March 6, 2009.

The program provides for up to 5,000 special Immigrant visas per year which religious denominations or organizations in the United States can use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service in our country. Since its initial enactment in 1990, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended four times. Yet some seem quick to discount the importance of the program. I point out that the continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives did not include language to extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program.

Among the important tasks nonminister religious workers perform are: providing human services to the most needy, including shelter and nutrition; caring for and ministering to the sick, aged, and dying; working with adolescents and young adults; assisting religious leaders as they lead their congregations and communities in worship; counseling those who have suffered severe trauma and/or hardship; supporting families, particularly when they are in crisis; offering religious instruction, especially to new members of the religious denomination; and, helping refugees and immigrants in the United States adjust to a new way of life.

To ensure that this program is not abused by fraud or other measures, the proposed legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud in the program before it goes into

effect. Additionally, the legislation requires the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security to submit to Congress a report on the effectiveness of the aforementioned regulations.

I note that there are several religious organizations that support passage of my legislation, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Jewish Committee, the Agudath Israel of America, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the Church Communities International, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Mennonite Central Committee, the United States National Association of Evangelicals, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai of the United States, The Church of Scientology International, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Church and Society, the World Relief, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

There is no doubt that our country's religious organizations face sometimes insurmountable obstacles in using traditional employment immigration categories to fit their unique situations. Fortunately, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program allows our country's religious denominations to continue uninterrupted in their call to serve and provide support to those who are in the greatest need. I commend their service and hope they know how much I respect their work.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act of 2008. In these difficult economic times, many Utahns are facing the rising costs of health insurance and medical expenses. This bill would make it easier for families to decrease the cost of health insurance and encourage savings for retirement health care costs.

Briefly stated, this bill would enhance and improve Health Savings Accounts by addressing some of the questions and concerns that have been raised sine HSAs were first enacted in 2003 but were not addressed by the Health Opportunity Patient Empowerment Act of 2006.

Health Savings Accounts were created as an alternative to traditional health insurance. HSAs allow participants to pay for current medical bills while saving for future health care expenses. One of the most attractive features of these accounts is the high degree of control the participants have over how to spend the money and how to manage investments within the account.

Since their creation, HSAs have become increasingly popular. Part of the reason for this is that Health Savings Accounts offer several important tax incentives. Earnings accrued on savings in an HSA are not taxed. Funds can also be withdrawn from an HSA 100 percent tax free, so long as the withdrawal is related to medical care. HSAs are very easy is set up. Anyone can go to his or her local bank, credit union, insurance company, or sometimes even their employer and request to create an HSA.

Broad agreement now exists that Congress must advance reform that will ``bend the growth curve'' in health care inflation. In recent years American families--often along with the businesses they own or work for--have been addressing this inflation on their own, by turning toward health savings account-eligible health plans.

According to one survey, there are now 6.1 million people covered under health plans that are eligible for an HSA, including over 70,000 in my home state of Utah. This is a 35 percent increase over the previous year, and it is clear that businesses large and small see these plans as an innovative solution for their employees' health care needs.

In addition, because HSAs offer lower premiums, existing businesses find that they are able to maintain coverage, while new businesses are able to extend health insurance to their employees. And increasingly, these businesses are funding their employee's HSAs just as they would a 401(k) plan. At the same time, the financial burden on families generally decreases under these plans due to lower premiums and a cap on out-of-pocket expenditures.

Given these attractive features, HSA-eligible health plans will only expand over time. In fact, a recent report estimates that the number of Health Savings Accounts will double between January 2008 and January 2009. It is appropriate, therefore, to continue to make common sense reforms to improve these plans for the families and businesses that are choosing them.

That is what this bill is all about. Among other things, the bill I am introducing would allow a husband and wife to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA; clarify the use of prescription drugs as preventive care that will not be subject to the deductible; promote wellness by expanding the definition of qualified medical expenses to encourage more exercise and better diet; and establish a more equitable tax treatment of health insurance by allowing individuals and families without employer-sponsored insurance the ability to pay for their health insurance premiums with tax-deductible dollars.

This proposal is certainly not a substitute for broader health care reform. Instead, it seeks to improve an important and growing innovation that is a partial answer to the health care puzzle.

As the Senate prepares for a comprehensive health care debate in the coming months, it is important that we do what we can now to promote wellness, decrease costs, and increase coverage. By taking the intermediate steps proposed in this bill, we can facilitate broader reforms by decreasing costs and assisting businesses and families as they seek to make affordable health care choices.

I expect the popularity of HSAs will one day elevate the acronym to the level of IRAs, where no further clarification is required. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to accelerate that process by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.