Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2010

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bayh and Senator Bond to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act. This legislation builds upon the great work that medical-legal partnerships are doing every day, all across the United States.

Medical-legal partnerships bring legal aid services into medical settings, such as hospitals and community health centers, to provide patients with legal help to address conditions that lead to poor health, lengthy hospital stays, and repeated emergency room visits. Imagine, for example, that your child develops chronic ear infections. You repeatedly bring your sick child to the local emergency room, struggling each time to pay the high costs of medical care and prescription antibiotics. Imagine further that you are the head of a low-income family, you don't have health insurance or the money to pay for the ER visits, and the hospital or community bears the brunt of the costs.

Medical-legal partnerships can help break this expensive and avoidable cycle. If the emergency room doctor is trained in screening for families who could benefit from legal intervention, the doctor may learn, for example, that the family's landlord refuses to turn on the heat in their apartment building. The frigid temperatures in their home have made their child more susceptible to illness, which explains the chronic ear infections. By referring the patient to the hospital's medical-legal partnership program, the family receives legal aid to go after the slumlord and require the heat to be turned on, and the children's ear infections stop. As a consequence, the family is healthier, their home is warm, and both they and the hospital save on health costs. All of this is possible because of a low-cost, common- sense intervention.

The first medical-legal partnership was started in Boston in 1993, and since

then, 85 more have sprung up in 38 States. These centers can serve multiple hospitals and clinics within a community. Currently, medical- legal partnerships support more than 200 hospitals, clinics, and health centers. They help vulnerable patients resolve social conditions that lead to poor health outcomes, such as getting a landlord to change air filters to help minimize asthma and allergies, assisting victims of domestic violence with preventing future abuse, and helping terminally ill patients make custodial arrangements for their dependent children.

In many cases, patients aren't even aware that their health challenges are caused by their living environment, or that their problem can be addressed through the legal system.

After graduating from law school, I served as a Legal Services attorney in Iowa. I learned first-hand how crucial this assistance is to struggling families and individuals who have no place else to turn when they are taken advantage of or abused. I know the invaluable legal help provided to battered women trying to leave abusive relationships while fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. I know that, without access to the legal system, the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer.

I am very proud to say that my home State of Iowa has a particularly successful partnership. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project harnesses the talents of Iowa physicians and attorneys to improve the lives of vulnerable Iowans. Many times these situations involve substandard housing, discrimination, elder abuse, or problems accessing disability, Social Security, health, or veteran's benefits. By partnering with 17 hospitals and health centers across my State, the Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project is able to extend services from Sioux City to Dubuque, and from Council Bluffs to Fort Dodge. Last year, the program served 880 Iowans, and 94 percent of their cases had a positive outcome. The Iowa Legal Aid Health and Law Project does a remarkable job. They are just one example of the great work going on across the country.

You may be surprised to learn that when it comes to medical-legal partnerships, a little money can go a long way. Iowa's program was started with a Federal investment of less than $300,000. The program prevents hospital admissions and emergency room visits that cost hospitals and patients many thousands of dollars in health care costs and insurance premiums. A modest investment in these community programs can help people achieve healthier, safer lives and prevent future hospitalizations and health care costs. That sounds like common sense to me. And that's why, today, I am proud to introduce the Medical-Legal Partnership for Health Act along with Senators Bayh and Bond: to give health care providers and lawyers across the country the opportunity to start such programs.

The Act creates a Federal demonstration program to help create, strengthen, and evaluate medical-legal partnerships. Overall, this legislation will support 60 MLP sites in community health centers, the Veterans Administration, hospitals, and other health care settings.

In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, we have taken contentious issues off the table. For example, the bill excludes Federal money from being used toward class action law suits, medical malpractice cases, representation of undocumented individuals, and abortion or abortion-counseling services.

In addition to having bipartisan support, medical-legal partnerships have been praised by prominent organizations representing physicians and attorneys. They have received endorsement from the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Hospital Association, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, to name just a few.

Through this community-based, common-sense investment in addressing the social effects of poverty, we will be able to help so many of our most at-risk citizens to avoid illness and hospitalization.

I extend my sincere thanks to Senator Bayh and Senator Bond for their hard work and commitment to this bill. And I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this investment in medical-legal partnerships.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will lead to the establishment of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund on behalf of myself and Senator Kerry. The Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund bill authorizes the Administration to allocate, from existing funds granted under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, such sums as required to create the Fund. The mission of the Fund will be to help empower Pakistan's private sector to create jobs, which will contribute towards achieving long-term social stability and economic growth.

The failed attack that occurred on May 1, 2010 in Times Square reinforces the need for our governments to work together to neutralize the imminent threats posed by terrorist waiting to strike, while simultaneously preventing the cancer of extremism from spreading and corrupting local communities in both our countries.

It was to help undergird such cooperation that President Obama last year signed the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act authorizing $7.5 billion over 5 years. This non-military aid package is intended to help reverse Pakistan's converging crises of a growing al-Qaeda sanctuary, an expanding Taliban insurgency, a failing economy and deteriorating human development indicators. These conditions were intensifying turmoil and violence in the country, helping to incubate extremism and putting in question the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal, as well as our own domestic security.

In order to directly address Pakistan's troubling economic trajectory, the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund will work with the private sector to catalyze indigenous job creation, which will empower the people of Pakistan to help themselves. Entrepreneurial innovation is the engine that fuels sustainable economic growth and development. Pakistan currently enjoys a vibrant private sector, especially among small and medium size enterprises, but more must be done to encourage business formation and expansion.

According to the World Bank, small and medium size enterprises, SMEs, in

Pakistan account for nearly 90 percent of all businesses, 80 percent of all non-agricultural employees, and 40 percent of annual GDP. If the country is to emerge as a commercial partner and regional leader, SMEs must receive a strong transfusion of investment capital so that gainful employment exists as an alternative to the financial incentives offered by radical groups in Pakistan.

In addition to providing much needed capital to aspiring and established Pakistani entrepreneurs, the Fund will provide a vehicle through which we might also export the entrepreneurial instincts and experience that are widely dispersed, but largely untapped, among US financial experts. Sustainable entrepreneurial activity requires a combination of financial and intellectual capital. Delivering both of these ingredients effectively is essential.

USAID has demonstrated a limited capacity to deliver this type of relevant, usable assistance when needed. Currently under-resourced for and over-stretched by the task of rebuilding the infrastructures and economies of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Haiti--while simultaneously rebuilding the agency itself--USAID's efforts would be enhanced by the expertise the Fund could bring to bear.

The creation of a Fund for Pakistan, like many of its predecessors, could couple financial and intellectual capital in a framework that is uniquely suited to addressing the financial and technical assistance needs in distressed economies like Pakistan. Appointed by the president, the Board of Directors, comprised of 4 private citizens of the United States and 3 private citizens of Pakistan who serve without compensation, will leverage their experience and expertise operating in international and emerging markets to oversee the Fund, which will be based in Pakistan. In turn, the Board would hire and direct a group of American and Pakistani bankers, who would be dispatched, using existing funds granted under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, to provide technical assistance and traditional financial products, like working capital loans and 3 to 5 year cash flow term loans for expansion capital, to the private sector.

While the enterprise fund model is not perfect, it is a tested mechanism for promoting economic growth and reinvigorating fledgling economies. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Congress, through enactment of the Support for East European Development Act, SEED, and the Freedom Support Act, FSA, authorized nearly $1.2 billion for USAID to establish ten new investment funds, collectively known as the ``Enterprise Funds'', throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. These funds channeled funding into over 500 enterprises in 19 countries, leveraged an additional $5 billion in private investment capital from outside the U.S. Government, provided substantial development capital where supply was limited, created or sustained over 260,000 jobs through investment and development activities, funded $74 million in technical assistance to strengthen the private sector and is expected to recoup 137 percent of the original USAID funding.

Pakistan's economy has shown resilience in the face of many challenges since the 1960s. However, today the country stands at a crossroads. If Pakistan is to repress extremist voices and emerge as a more reliable partner in the 21st century, we must empower the private sector to create jobs and contribute towards a sustainable future. The creation of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund would help to achieve this positive outcome. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. President, our Nation has suffered through the worst recession since the 1930s. As the economy begins to recover, the availability of affordable and safe child care is a necessary component of enabling parents to find and maintain employment to support their family.

The recession has caused States across the country to scale back funding for child care. The waiting lists for subsidized child care in some States are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or are planning to stop providing child care assistance to families who are not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, altogether. Restrictions of the availability of child care assistance make it harder for parents to afford child care and force some parents to leave their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. That is wrong and we can do better.

Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can range from $4,560 to $15,895 annually for full-time care depending on where the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an infant in a child care center was higher than a year's tuition at many 4-year public colleges.

Without assistance, low-income families can find it impossible to secure child care. For example, in 2005, the median monthly income of families receiving child care assistance was just $15,396 a year. Nearly half of, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were single parent households.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increased mandatory child care funding by $1 billion over 5 years, fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Without legislative action this funding will expire on September 30, 2010.

The President's fiscal year 2011 budget calls for mandatory child care to be reauthorized and provided an $800 million increase above the past 5 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help.

Today I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. I am pleased Senator Lincoln is an original cosponsors of this important legislation.

The Children First Act would help states meet the significant demand for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child care by $800 million annually for fiscal year 2011 through 2015. This legislation would also annually index mandatory child care funding to inflation beginning in fiscal year 2012. This increased funding would allow approximately 117,500 more children to have access to safe and affordable child care.

The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards regardless of subsidy type received.

This legislation would increase the availability of child care for parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from withholding to reducing child care assistance to parents of a child with children under age 13.

Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 18,000 children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. Approximately half of the parents with at least one preschool age child in the household have been on the waitlist for 13 months or more.

The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts families pay more on average than families in any other state for most types of child care; the average price of full time care in center based settings is: $15,895 for an infant and $11,678 for a preschooler. This means a single parent at the State median income in Massachusetts, $26,680, would have to spend nearly 44 percent of their income to pay for the average full day pre-kindergarten program.

I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have endorsed it today, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP, the First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Women's Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the YMCA of the

Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of that hearing. During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.

Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security of the passport issuance process is extremely important because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.

A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, has revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud.

As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access information contained in Federal, State, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations, procedures, and policies to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. But we have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

We simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud.

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

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food Safety Enforcement Act, legislation that will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. This common sense bill increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who knowingly violate our food safety laws. If it is passed, those who knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could receive up to 10 years in jail.

Last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, and Mrs. Meunier was able to share her story, which highlighted for the Committee and for the Senate improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe.

Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as just the cost of doing business. In order to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct, we need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail.

After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. The outbreak was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products have been linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that Parnell knew that peanut products from his company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the public's safety.

The bill I introduce today would increase sentences for people who put profits above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply. It makes such offenses felony violations and significantly increases the chances that those who commit them will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct.

I hope Senators of both parties will act quickly to pass this bill. On behalf of Mrs. Meunier and her son, Christopher, as well as many like them across the country, we must repair our broken food safety system. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate, prosecute, and truly deter crime involving food safety. This bill will be an important step toward making our food supply safer.

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