Military Family Nutrition Protection Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009, on behalf of myself and Senator Kennedy, to prevent the exploitation of people, citizens, and non-citizens alike, who are preyed on when seeking immigration assistance.

The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws.

Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law.

Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.

The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill.

The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR.

Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non- citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law.

Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress.

By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA.

Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings.

Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings.

From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years.

Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud.

Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic.

Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Kennedy in putting an end to it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban Bisphenol A, BPA, from food and drink containers. I am pleased to be working with Congressman Markey on this issue, and he will be introducing identical legislation in the House. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Schumer, who has agreed to cosponsor this legislation.

I believe this is a good and necessary bill. The science shows that BPA is added to food and drink containers, and leaches into these foods and beverages, especially when heated in a plastic container.

Make no mistake, chemicals are everywhere, even in our food. In many cases, we know very little about their safety. I strongly believe that the time has come to utilize a precautionary standard in all food and beverages with respect to chemical additives. If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used.

Bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA, is one such example. It is used in consumer products all around us: plastic containers that store food, compact discs, water bottles, canned soups and other canned foods, even baby bottles.

More than 100 studies suggest that BPA exposure at very low doses is linked to a variety of health problems, including prostate and breast cancer, obesity, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, brain damage, altered immune system, lowered sperm counts, and early puberty.

The National Toxicology Program in the Department of Health and Human Services has cited ``some concern'' that Bisphenol A may affect neural development in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures.

The solution is simple. My legislation will ban the use of Bisphenol A from food and drink containers. This ban will be effective 180 days following enactment of the legislation.

The bill will create a waiver process, in case a company demonstrates that it is technologically impossible to replace BPA in that time frame. A manufacturer can receive a one year waiver, which is renewable, while they work to remove BPA from their product. They must submit a plan to remove BPA, and their product must be labeled as containing BPA.

The legislation also directs the Food and Drug Administration to routinely review the ``List of Substances Generally Regarded as Safe.'' If new evidence emerges that suggests a chemical is not safe for use in a particular manner, it will be removed from the product.

Scientists have raised alarms regarding BPA for some time. It is an endocrine disruptor, mimicking estrogen when it is exposed to a cell.

Scientists at Stanford University accidentally discovered BPA's estrogen-mimicking effects in 1993. A mysterious estrogen-like chemical skewed results of their lab work, and they finally realized that BPA was leaching from laboratory flasks.

We know that BPA is found in almost everyone. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey, NHANES, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found BPA in the bodies of 92.6 percent of the people surveyed. The study did not examine the exposure of children under 6. But it did find that levels were highest in young children, a troubling finding given that exposure to BPA is potentially most dangerous during these critical early years of development.

We know a major source of this exposure: the cans that contain our food,

the containers we eat from, even the baby bottles used to serve formula.

The Environmental Working Group commissioned an independent lab to study BPA in cans in 2007. They tested 97 cans of some of the most popular consumer products. Their findings will alarm any consumer: 53 of the 97 cans tested had detectable levels of BPA; 20 of the 53 cans with BPA have high enough levels that consuming that canned product would expose a person to levels near those that have been found to impact laboratory rats; 1 in 10 cans contained enough BPA to expose a pregnant woman or child to more than 200 times the Government's safe level. The same is true for 1 out of every 3 cans of infant formula.

For women who regularly eat canned food, their exposure level throughout a pregnancy may exceed safe doses.

These are not exotic products, but the canned goods that are in pantries across this county: meal replacement shakes, canned soups, vegetables, and canned pastas, like ravioli.

Baby bottles are also a common exposure source. Multiple studies have confirmed that many of the most popular brands of baby bottles leach BPA. A coalition of health and environmental groups, in their recent report ``Baby's Toxic Bottle'', identified several popular brands of baby bottles that leach BPA when heated: Avent; Disney, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo; Gerber; Playtex.

Now every parent knows that milk served to babies is often heated, at least to room temperature. And these bottles, when heated, leached between 5 and 8 parts per billion of BPA, a level that is within the range that has been shown to cause harm in animal studies.

We know that BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical, and may act like estrogen when in the human body. While the science is still emerging, research is connecting Bisphenol A with a variety of serious health effects. These include: early onset of puberty; hyperactivity; lowered sperm count; miscarriage.

The chemical industry will try to reassure consumers that BPA is safe, and that studies have found these health effects only in laboratory animals exposed to BPA in high doses.

But new evidence that goes beyond laboratory rat models is emerging. Last year, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine linked BPA to problems in brain function and mood disorders in monkeys, for the first time connecting the chemical to health problems in primates.

The Yale scientists exposed monkeys to low levels of BPA, which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, have deemed safe for humans.

Researchers found that this chemical exposure interfered with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood.

The researchers stated that the findings suggest that exposure to low-dose BPA may cause widespread effects on brain structure and function.

In September of last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, published a study that links BPA levels in people to several serious health problems.

The study examined the BPA concentrations found in 1455 adults who participated in the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES, a study which detected BPA in more than 90 percent of Americans tested. Using this data, researchers linked higher BPA concentrations to adverse health affects, including: cardiovascular disease; type II diabetes; clinically abnormal concentrations of some liver enzymes.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the study on September 17th, stating ``that the quarter of the group with the highest BPA levels-- levels still considered safe by the FDA--were more than twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and cardiovascular disease as the quarter with the lowest levels.''

This is the first large scale study to be done examining human exposure, and I believe it must be taken very seriously.

Industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. But one study shows us why we should be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies.

In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies into low dose exposure to BPA with studies funded by the BPA industry.

The results are astounding; 92 percent of the Government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems in animals.

However, none of the industry funded research identified any health problems in animals exposed to low levels of BPA.

This raises serious questions about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. It also illustrates why our Nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research into their products.

The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the science is incomplete. The FDA's Science Board released a report in October 2008 that raised serious questions about the previous FDA assessments that found BPA to be safe.

In response, the FDA has asked for more studies and more research. More research is fine, but I feel strongly that we must not leave a dangerous chemical on the market while scientists learn exactly how dangerous it is.

Sufficient evidence exists for us to act now. I believe strongly in taking a precautionary approach to our chemical policy; people should be protected from chemicals until we know that they are safe for use.

There is a great deal wrong with the regulatory system in this country and the way we address dangerous chemicals. Our system is essentially backwards. Chemicals are added to products before we know much about them. To be removed from the market, a chemical must be proven to be exceedingly dangerous.

That means that while we wait for evidence of harm to develop, our children are using dangerous products, and possibly eating contaminated food.

I believe it should be the reverse. We should follow the lead of the European Union, and Canada, and remove chemicals until we know them to be safe. We should not be waiting for proof of danger, which too often comes in the form of birth defects, cancer, and other irreversible health harms.

While we continue to work to change our regulatory system, the time has come to apply this precautionary principle to BPA. Without question, there is more scientific work to be done. But we must not continue to expose our citizens to these risks while we wait to confirm BPA's dangers beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Canadian government has already taken this approach with BPA, moving to eliminate polycarbonate baby bottles that contain Bisphenol A last year. Canadian officials stated that because safe alternatives are readily available, this ban is a prudent way to reduce risk for vulnerable infants.

Many large retailers and producers, including Toys ``R'' Us, Nalgene, and Wal-Mart have agreed to no longer sell or produce baby bottles or plastic water bottles containing BPA. And just last week, the leading manufacturers of baby bottles announced they would no longer sell baby bottles made with BPA.

This is great news. I commend them, but we should not be forced to rely on retailers to product American consumers from health hazards.

The Congress agreed with this precautionary approach and banned six plasticizing chemicals, called phthalates, in legislation last year. Like BPA, phthalates have been linked to a variety of health problems in young children. Instead of doing nothing with the evidence mounts, Congress chose to step in and protect children from this risk.

The time has come to do the same with Bisphenol A.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleague, Senator Pryor, the Building a Stronger America Act. This bipartisan legislation is a vital step toward recognizing the value of ``science parks''--which are concentrated high-tech, science, and research-related businesses--in strengthening America's global competitiveness. Through the development of new innovative technologies, competing and complementary companies working within close quarters are able to build upon each other's ideas when entering the national and global marketplace. Unlike well known industrial parks, science parks focus primarily on innovation and product advancement. These parks are a vital part of the Nation's economy, creating 2.57 jobs for each core job in a science park.

As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I adamantly encourage increased investment in new and existing science, research, and technology parks throughout the United States as it is vital in the creation of new jobs. Our legislation would allow the Secretary of Commerce to guarantee up to 80 percent of loans exceeding $10 million for the construction of science parks. Additionally, the bill would provide grants for the development of feasibility studies and plans for the construction or expansion of science parks. This bipartisan measure would drive innovation and regional entrepreneurship by enabling science parks to renovate or build, while also encouraging rural and urban States to undertake studies on developing their own successful clusters.

On August 9, 2007, the President signed into law, the America Competes Act legislation authorizing $43 billion of new funding over the next three fiscal years that will boost Federal investment in math and science education programs. The bill we are introducing today would help to ensure that this workforce is provided with avenues in which to operate, building on the efforts of the America Competes Act by increasing research funding and education for our innovative workforce.

In my home State of Maine, we simply do not have the population density in any given area to support traditional science parks. However, Maine is a national leader in providing business ``incubation'' services. Incubators are critical to the success of new companies. To help startup entrepreneurs in Maine, incubation centers around the State provide business support tailored to companies in their region. The benefit of business incubators in Maine has been nothing short of monumental, with 87 percent of all businesses that graduate from incubators remaining in business, surviving, and creating new jobs. The seven technology centers located throughout Maine play a pivotal role in promoting technology-led economic development by advancing their own regional competitive advantages. Under the Building a Stronger America Act, both science parks and business incubators will be eligible for its vital assistance.

Residency in science parks provides businesses with numerous advantages, including access to a range of management, marketing, and financial services. At its heart, a science park provides an organized link to local research centers or universities, providing resident companies with the constant access to the expertise, knowledge, and technology they need to grow. These innovation centers are specifically geared toward the needs of new and small companies, providing a controlled environment for the incubation of firms and the achievement of high growth.

It is also vital to point out that the jobs science parks reflect the needs of a high-tech, innovative, and global marketplace. Science parks have helped lead the technological revolution and have created more than 300,000 high-paying science and technology jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs, for a total of 750,000 jobs in North America.

Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Through America's investments in science and technology, we continually change our country for the better. Ideas by innovative Americans in the private and public sector have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing this vital sector if America is to compete at the forefront of innovation, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that Senator Pryor and I have introduced, the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As base communities nationwide struggle with a host of issues--from

the tumultuous economy, to closures as a result of the latest Defense Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, round, to an influx in service personnel--the Federal Government must provide assistance to its base communities to effectively implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense and to spur economic growth. This legislation, which is supported by the Association of Defense Communities, ADC, seeks to accomplish that goal by providing immediate benefits to all base communities, for both closed and active military installations across the country.

During even the best of economic times, the closure of a military base can devastate a local economy. Today, with our economy in a troubling recession, the outlook is even more grim, with communities facing overwhelming challenges in redeveloping a former military installation. For instance, the closure of the Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, in my home State of Maine will create profoundly negative economic consequences with an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs. Given these trying economic times, we must ensure that every effort is made to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base closures.

There is no question that the negative effects of base closures are disproportionately and unfairly borne by the communities where bases have closed. At the same time, communities surrounding active bases must cope with realignments, global repositioning, and grow the force initiatives to accommodate service personnel influxes at their own expense. That is why this comprehensive measure includes key provisions to assist not only bases facing closure, but active base communities absorbing growth impacts.

Accordingly, this legislation would grant permanent authority for the military departments to exchange real property deemed excess to the DOD, in return for the construction of new facilities, or to limit encroachments, at other active installations. This authority provides military departments with greater flexibility in real estate asset management and has previously only been available to property on an installation that had been closed or realigned.

In recent years, the Army has engaged in pilot programs at installations to procure municipal services, such as water and electricity, from a city or county government. These municipal service agreements have been successful, saving the Army several million dollars and providing significant benefits. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, this authority was extended to the other two military departments and allowed each service to purchase municipal services for three installations. This legislation builds on that success and greatly extends the military departments' authority to purchase, from a county government or other local government, municipal services for military installations across the country.

Additionally, this bill would address the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement, DSMOA, program which was established to facilitate and fund State oversight of contaminated DOD sites, including BRAC sites. DOD has recently interpreted DSMOA in a manner that has severely impaired state budgets, which has in turn reduced State oversight at these sites. The Defense Communities Assistance Act would ensure that funding under DSMOA may be used for state BRAC property transfer activities while also preventing withholding DSMOA funds when States exercise their enforcement authority.

Additionally, section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 was originally adopted with the intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from liability for undiscovered pre-existing pollution conditions at closed military installations. Regrettably, recent court decisions have been inconsistent in interpreting section 330 creating uncertainty that has left base closure property holders with difficulty in obtaining environmental insurance among other problems. This bill provides vital clarification to ensure the original intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from unnecessary liability at closed military installations.

Furthermore, the national economic problems that our country currently faces demand swift and efficient action to avert a deeper and more intractable recession. That is why this legislation would repeal section 3006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002, thereby encouraging the Secretary of Defense to provide no-cost Economic Development Conveyances, EDCs, to base communities as a preferred property disposal mechanism. This provision would help to spur job generation and economic development immediately.

As a result of five BRAC rounds, hundreds of military installations have been decommissioned or downsized with the expectation that the properties would be available for local reuse and economic development. At the same time, an inconsistent and time consuming transfer process by the military departments has left thousands of acres of former installation property in Federal ownership, with the fallow acreage hampering the host community's economic recovery. There is tremendous risk that in the current economic climate, with property values at their lowest position in the past decade, these properties will sit fallow for years without the use of no-cost EDCs.

This measure is stimulative in nature by getting property off the books of the Federal Government and into the hands of developers to be redeveloped quickly so that displaced workers in the community will once again become employed. Encouraging expedited free, or less than fair market value, property transfers would result in incentives for private investment, significant infrastructure and public benefits, and the potential generation of tens of thousands of jobs. That is why it is a responsible course of action for the Government to provide these communities with the tools and resources, such as no-cost EDCs, needed to recover from a closure.

The timeframe and uncertainty of the BRAC transfer process is the single greatest obstacle to redevelopment of the underutilized lands. Expediting transfer of these former military bases would stimulate both private and public investment in infrastructure and redevelopment, resulting in job creation and economic development activity, the rebuilding of inadequate local infrastructure funded by the redevelopment project, and local, State, and Federal tax generation. Moreover, the Federal Government would be relieved of its property management responsibilities, saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Pryor and me in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, as I think all Americans understand, there is a new sense of outrage today at what Wall Street has done through their greed, their recklessness and, perhaps, illegal behavior, in plunging this Nation and, in fact, the world into a deep recession, which has caused the loss of millions and millions of jobs, had an extraordinarily negative impact on so many people's lives in terms of their savings and their ability to send their kids to college, and in terms of the loss of their homes. That is what Wall Street has done.

In my view, as I have said time and time before, we must have a deep investigation to understand what this crisis was, who are the people responsible for all of this damage, and we must hold them accountable. In fact, it will be a test of the criminal justice system of this country if, in fact, we have the courage to say to these millionaires and billionaires: You know what, the law applies to you too, and you cannot act illegally and cause so much damage to our country and the world.

One of the many senses of anger and frustration that we hear from the American people, one of them that I hear about very often from Vermonters, as well as people all over this country, is that at a time when we are providing hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, at a time when large banks are borrowing money from the Fed at a zero interest rate, the response of Wall Street has been to say: Thank you very much for all of that, and now we are going to charge you 15, 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates on your credit cards.

It seems to me that when the middle class is shrinking, when people are losing their savings, when people are losing their jobs, it is an absolute outrage that Wall Street, which is being bailed out by the taxpayers of this country, is now charging exorbitant and usurious interest rates for the American people.

What we are seeing now all over this country is millions of people who are suddenly receiving notices from these banks that say, oh, by the way, we are going to double or triple your interest rate. That is wrong and that has to end.

I am not going to quote from the Bible, but trust me, it goes back to the Bible, where there are very clear references to the immorality of usury. In fact, what we have to understand is that what Wall Street and these credit

card companies today are doing is not anything different than what gangsters and loan shark artists do who break people's kneecaps when they don't pay back, only these gangsters have three-piece suits and have millions of dollars. But at the same time they are destroying people's lives by charging 25, 30 percent interest rates.

Today, I will be introducing legislation that will require any lender in this country to immediately cap all interest rates on consumer loans at 15 percent, including credit cards.

How do we select 15 percent as the appropriate number to deal with the usury which is going on in this country? The reason we selected that number is because 15 percent is the same interest rate cap Congress imposed on credit union loans almost 30 years ago when it amended the Federal Credit Union Act.

Many people do not know this, but, in fact, right now credit unions, with certain exceptions, have to charge interest rates of 15 percent or lower. I do not see the credit unions of this country coming to Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. In fact, they are doing quite well. They are responding to the credit needs of their small businesses in their communities and to individuals. They are doing well. They have survived and have thrived with this regulation.

Right now, the National Credit Union Administration imposes a 15- percent cap, except under certain circumstances where the interest rate can go as high as 18 percent. The legislation I will be introducing today also would allow banks to charge higher interest rates if the Federal Reserve determines that is a necessity to maintain the safety and the soundness of lenders.

Essentially all we are saying today is we have to end the outrage by which Wall Street and large credit card companies are ripping off the American people, and the solution we are proposing is to simply emulate what the Federal Credit Union Act does for the credit unions all over this country.

I am very proud Senator Dick Durbin is an original cosponsor of this legislation. I hope many of my colleagues will join him in sponsoring this bill.

Interestingly enough, the proposal we are introducing today is very similar to one former Senator Al D'Amato advocated for in 1991 when he offered an amendment to cap credit card interest rates. The D'Amato amendment would have capped all credit card interest rates at 14 percent. I should mention that amendment was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 74 to 19. If the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of that amendment back in 1991, I hope we will have at least or more support for my bill today because the problem today actually is far more severe.

This is legislation the American people want. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off by Wall Street, especially when they are bailing out these large financial institutions.

Credit card use today is no longer just for luxuries. All over this country, people are buying their groceries with credit cards, and they are buying other basic necessities with credit cards because they have no other alternative. Young people are paying some of their college expenses with credit cards. Given that reality, given the fact that the middle class is hurting, it seems to me that if we are going to respond to the needs of the American people, we need to deal with the usury that is going on in this country. We need to cap interest rates.

I look forward very much to my colleagues supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Refund anticipation loans, RALs, are short term loans facilitated by tax preparers and secured by a taxpayer's expected tax refund which typically carry a three or four digit interest rate. These predatory RALs prey on low-income taxpayers, diminishing their earned tax credits.

Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, benefits are intended to help working families meet their food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education needs. According to the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, in 2007 EITC filers made up 63 percent of all RAL consumers despite being only 17 percent of the taxpayer population. The National Consumer Law Center estimates $567 million was drained out of the EITC program in 2007 by RAL loan and add-on fees. Working families cannot afford to lose a significant portion of their EITC funds by expensive, short-term RALs.

The high interest rates and fees charged on RALs are not justified because these loans are outstanding for only a short length of time and present minimal risk to lenders because of the Debt Indicator, DI, program. The DI program is a service provided by the IRS that informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or State taxes, child support, student loans, or other government obligations, which assists tax preparers in ascertaining the ability of applicants to obtain their full refund so that the RAL can be repaid.

It is troubling that the Department of the Treasury facilitates the use of RALs. In 1995, use of the DI program was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. The use of the DI program was reinstated in 1999. The effect of the DI program on total RAL volume is clear: the number of RALs fell dramatically following the suspension of the program in 1995 and rose again to pre-suspension levels immediately following its reinstatement in 1999. Use of the DI program should once again be stopped because it is helping tax preparers make excessive profits from low- and moderate-income taxpayers who utilize RALs. The Department of the Treasury should not be facilitating the use of RALs that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families.

The Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers by terminating the DI program, and expand access to opportunities for saving and lending at mainstream financial services. My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC benefits. Other federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended benefit.

My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL providers. It will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize federal tax refunds would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take future legal action if necessary.

Too many working families are susceptible to predatory lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by reliance on high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save in preparation for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses.

To address this problem, my bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. Electronic Transfer Accounts, ETAs, are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments, such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a RAL.

Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and immediate access to financial opportunities found at banks and credit unions.

The timeliness of this legislation has never been greater. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill that offers consumer protection from predatory RALs and expand access to mainstream financial services.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Durbin, for cosponsoring this 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 Agriculture Smart Trade Act along with my colleague Senator Stabenow. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that, as we consider the various free trade agreements that come before the Senate, we are also looking at the big picture, including the increased risk of accidentally importing invasive pests or diseases and the ability for American agricultural producers to access new export markets once trade agreements are in effect. Our bill is supported by United Fresh, the national association of fruit and vegetable growers and processors, and the U.S. Apple Association.

The bill does two things. First, it requires the administration to send a report to Congress prior to the start of formal trade negotiations with a foreign nation detailing potential invasive pests and disease that could pose a risk to U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, this report must identify what additional agricultural inspectors and other personnel are needed to prevent these pests and diseases from being brought into the United States.

Second, the bill requires the administration to disclose in the same report all sanitary and photosanitary, also known as SPS, trade barriers that could unduly restrict export markets for American commodities. What we have seen in the past is that a trading partner will raise SPS barriers to prevent American products from entering their country. Some of these SPS barriers are not grounded in science are simply non-tariff trade barriers. As the Administration begins negotiations for a trade agreement, we all need to take a look at what kinds of SPS issues we have with potential trading partners. Are their SPS concerns based in science? We need to be sure that once an agreement is in effect, we will have access to those foreign markets as stipulated in the trade agreement.

I want to be very clear that this bill does not in any way limit the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements under Fast-Track, nor does it prevent trade legislation from being considered by the Congress. What this bill does is provide the Senate and the House of Representatives with a more complete picture of what potential trade agreements involve beyond the obvious import and export quotas.

Regardless of how any senator feels about the free trade agreements that we review and debate, I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that increased international trade means an increased risk of importing bugs and diseases that have the potential to devastate our food sources, jeopardize the

livelihoods of our farmers, and cost our states a fortune. We need to acknowledge the risk and put in place the best safeguards we can to prevent the accidental introduction of these harmful pests.

I am not merely speculating about the risk of invasive pests and disease. It is a fact that all of our states are battling insects and crop diseases and dreading the next outbreak.

Most recently in Pennsylvania we discovered that the western part of our state is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive beetle that was accidently imported to the U.S. through Detroit via wooden shipping pallets from China. This beetle is costing our commercial nursery growers millions of dollars in lost stock. Senator Stabenow knows better than anyone how much money, time and other resources the Ash Borer has cost the states of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But that's just one example. Orange growers in Florida have spent the past decade fighting to contain and eradicate citrus canker, an invasive disease that causes citrus trees to produce less and less fruit until they prematurely die. And California and Texas have dealt with expensive eradication programs to deal with the Mediterranean fruit fly or ``Med fly.''

The list goes on and on. There is not a single state that has not been impacted by invasive pests or diseases. So I hope that my colleagues will support the Agriculture Smart Trace Act, and help us make smart decisions that will protect our growers and our economy while opening new export markets. Because that is what this bill is about--smart trade.

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