A bill to establish a user fee for follow-up reinspections under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the Bush administration for originally proposing this fee, which is again proposed in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget. This fee carries proposed savings of an estimated $24 million per year, and could save as much as $115 million over 5 years.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet Federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kohl to introduce the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve student achievement in our Nation's schools. One part of student performance that is often overlooked is nutrition, which can have a significant impact on student achievement. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide more nutritious food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack program.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I was lucky never to have to worry about going hungry, and my parents did not have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast. The fact is, that is a choice many parents do have to make today, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The current economic difficulties and rising unemployment have only increased the burdens facing low income families in Wisconsin and around the country as they struggle to provide nutritious meals for their children.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and

on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class. I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, in my home State of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools have been working with the Hunger Task Force for the past few years to implement universal school breakfast programs, which they have in place now in more than 80 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

This bill would target the most in-need schools--those with 65 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program--with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers faced in trying to create a school breakfast program.

Our Nation faces a series of pressing education challenges in its schools, including most significantly a large achievement gap and graduation rate gap among minority and low income students. After decades of civil rights struggles, public education should provide all our students with access to equal opportunities, but the quality of public education provided to students of color and low-income students in urban and rural Wisconsin and around the country still does not come close to affording many of these students an equal chance for success. Too often these students learn in crumbling and outdated buildings, they do not have the same access to high quality technology in their classrooms, they are taught by the least experienced teachers, and they often do not have adequate access to important resources like school counselors and nurses.

These and a number of other factors contribute to the achievement gap in our Nation's schools and the Federal Government can help to address this gap by promoting smarter and more flexible accountability structures and increased supports for schools during the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress should also help to address some of the many other issues facing our nation's students living in poverty issues that may not seem directly related to education, but impact the academic growth of students including hunger, affordable housing, and crime. This bill takes an important step to address hunger and also seeks to improve nutrition education by providing funds to expand school breakfast programs, boost collaboration between local farmers and schools, expand service- learning opportunities in our classrooms, and improve nutrition education programming for students.

In this economy, more and more parents are forced to make these kinds of decisions, and the school meal programs can provide a tremendous relief. As we look forward to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it is vital that we take stock of the successes and limitations of existing programs. School breakfast faces a number of hurdles that, quite simply, other school feeding programs do not. Chief of those is time. For some students, getting to school early is impossible; for some, the lure of breakfast is not a strong enough draw to get up earlier. These are problems that schools across the country are facing and solving with creativity and dedication. This legislation will help support the innovative work going on in some of our nation's schools and will help to scale up successful nutrition programs in other schools so that hopefully one day, none of America's students will start the school day hungry.

Mr. President, last year we were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike as they grew into monster storms, crossing the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Ike, the third most destructive storm in the history of the U.S., made landfall in Galveston, Texas, and then tracked through Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, killing 112 people and causing more than $24 billion in damage.

Since 2003, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have caused more than 2,000 deaths in the U.S. Forty percent of all hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. hit Florida.

Insured losses from hurricanes average more than $5.2 billion per year. A recent study of hurricane-related damages over the last century suggests that economic losses will double every 10 years. With more than 50 percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of the coast, and with 180 million people visiting the coast annually, the risks to life and property are growing.

Hurricanes, however, do not just impact the coasts. These extreme events also have national consequences, such as increased fuel prices, displaced populations, and severe inland flooding.

The American public is increasingly aware of the potential for high recovery costs and financing of natural disaster losses. I cannot overstate the importance of prior preparation and insurance coverage for large catastrophic risks--including natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes--as well as efforts to promote a stable, affordable catastrophic insurance market.

This is why today Senator Martinez and I are introducing four bills: the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, S. 1487, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009, S. 1486, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009, S. 1484, and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009, 1485. These bills take a pro-active approach in addressing these natural catastrophe concerns.

The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009 will expand the scope of fundamental research on hurricanes. The bill is aimed at improving hurricane forecasting and tracking and helping us find better ways to mitigate their impact. The Act will establish a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant program for hurricane and tropical cyclone research and bring together a task force, jointly chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and NSF.

The second bill, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, establishes the bipartisan Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance. This commission will assess the condition of the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, as well as the four major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in 2004. It will also evaluate the country's ongoing exposure to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods. Finally, the commission will recommend and report legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the domestic and international financial health and competitiveness of property and casualty insurance markets, assuring the availability of adequate insurance when an insured event occurs, as well as the best possible range of insurance products at competitive prices.

The Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow property and casualty insurance companies to create tax-exempt disaster protection funds and to make tax deductible contributions to those funds for the payment of policyholders' claims arising from certain catastrophic events, such as windstorms, earthquakes, fires, and floods.

Finally, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to create tax-exempt catastrophe savings accounts. Individuals could take tax-free distributions from these accounts to pay expenses resulting from a presidentially declared major disaster. The bill limits catastrophe savings account balances to $2,000 for individuals with homeowner insurance deductibles of not more than $1,000, and the lesser of $15,000 or twice the homeowner's insurance deductible for individuals with deductibles of more than $1,000.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the entire country experiences financial losses when hurricanes hit. It is time for us to take the bull by the horns and pass legislation that plans in advance for these and other natural disasters.

As we are in the hurricane season, it will become painfully apparent just

how precarious a lot of the construction is, how precarious building codes are not being fairly and judiciously administered, and it will become evident what an economic disaster even a mild hurricane can cause when it hits the coast. And Lord knows, if the big one hits an urbanized part of the coast--and the big one is a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane--it is going to create economic chaos. It is going to cause the insurance industry to be on the brink of total collapse. And it will ultimately, just like Katrina, end up having the U.S. Government pay a major part of the economic bailout consequences of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake hitting the United States. We ought to get ahead of it and we ought to plan for it, and that is what this package of four bills Senator Martinez and I are offering will do.

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

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to introduce this bill in order to correct disparities among the Small Business Administration's small business contracting programs. Building on my efforts to bring true parity to the program, this bill will create a more equitable and flexible method for federal agencies to fairly allocate federal procurement dollars to small business contractors across the nation. Earlier this year, I filed an amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to create parity as part of S. 454, the Weapon

Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted.

For years it has been unclear to the acquisition community what, if any, the true order of preference is for determining which small business contracting program is at the top of the agency's priority list. The SBA's regulations state that there is parity among the programs, and this had been the general practice in effect until two Government Accountability Office decisions were released on September 19, 2008 and May 4, 2009.

The decisions stated that the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program had preference over all other small business contracting programs. While the interpretation benefits HUBZone businesses, it comes at the expense of other vital small business contracting programs. This targeted bill provides equity for the SBA's small business contracting programs.

The bill provides Federal agencies with the necessary flexibility to satisfy their government-wide statutory small business contracting goals. This bill makes clear to purchasing agencies that contracting officers may award contracts to HUBZone, Service Disabled Veterans, 8(a), or women-owned firms with equal deference to each program. It would provide these agencies with the ability to achieve their goaling requirements equally through an award to a HUBZone firm, a service- disabled veteran-owned small business, and a small business participating in the 8(a) business development program. Of course this list will also include women-owned small businesses once the women's procurement program is fully implemented by the SBA.

In addition, this bill brings the SBA's contracting programs closer to true parity by giving HUBZones a subcontracting goal. HUBZones are the only small business contracting program without a subcontracting goal. In addition, the bill authorizes mentor protege programs modeled after those used in the 8(a) program for HUBZones, service-disabled veteran and women-owned firms.

The essence of true parity is where each program has an equal chance of competing and being selected for an award. During these difficult economic times, it is imperative that small business contractors possess an equal opportunity to compete for Federal contracts on the same playing field with each other.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice.

Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel. The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less energy.

This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal settlement.

Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of 2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment.

American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to helping them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve.

I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it to the American consumers.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to address a growing problem resulting from America's high levels of unemployment and economic downturn. Congress is working to design health reform that will provide access to quality, affordable insurance coverage for every American, but as unemployment numbers continue to rise, help may not come in time to avoid coverage denials on the individual insurance market and unbearable economic strain for those job seekers whose COBRA coverage has expired.

The Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 codified 18 months of additional group rate coverage under employer sponsored plans following a triggering event such as job loss. This law has been instrumental in providing continuity of health coverage for families. The measure requires companies with over 20 employees to provide access to 18 months of continued coverage at the employee's expense, except in cases of firing for gross employee misconduct. Beneficiaries cover the additional administrative expense, and may be charged up to 103 percent of their original premiums.

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided help with health insurance for families who lost their jobs after September 1, 2008 and through December of 2009. For those in this category, the federal government provides nine months of subsidized premiums, with beneficiaries covering 35 percent of premium costs. However, the downturn started well before September of 2008.

For those that lost their job before September, and are still looking for work, the situation is dire. Many are quickly facing the end of their 18 month eligibility period for COBRA. They hear about health reform but have no idea when it may come. Insurance exchanges to guaranteeing eligibility and reasonable premiums on the individual market could take years to set up. In the mean time, those who could have afforded coverage under COBRA may instead have to resort to emergency room care and bankruptcy.

The Emergency COBRA Expansion Act of 2009 will give job seekers the opportunity to continue their COBRA coverage for up to an additional 6 months. The bill applies to all of those utilizing COBRA benefits as of the date of bill passage, and would not extend anyone's coverage beyond 12 months from the date of bill enactment. A year from now, our country will be on the road to economic recovery, but in the meantime we need to help struggling families to stay insured and healthy.