A resolution honoring Concerns of Police Survivors for 25 years of service to family members of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

Mr. President, I believe it is fair to say that there is a farm emergency in this country. Some of it is caused by drought, including out West where California has had, for 3 years, a very serious drought. But most of it is caused by the absence of farm labor--labor to help plant, prune, and harvest.

Many of us have listened to farm bureaus throughout the country, spoken with farmers who are losing land, fallowing land, and leasing land abroad. I think the time has come to do something about it.

Today, with 16 cosponsors, I am introducing an agricultural worker bill known as AgJOBS. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Boxer, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Feingold, Murray, Kerry, Bill Nelson, Kaufman, Casey, Cantwell, and Levin. It would provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve by reforming the broken H-2A seasonal worker program and offering a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed or who have been employed on American farms.

This bill is supported by more than 200 agricultural coalition and immigration reform groups throughout the Nation.

Since I last came to the floor to talk about a solution to this crisis, it has only grown. The bill is necessary, and I believe Congress must act now to save America's agriculture industry.

Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country's crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result.

Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency.

So some ask: Why don't American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don't they hire Americans?

The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact.

The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America's agricultural industry--a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply.

Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended ``America's breadbasket'' are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State's main north-south freeway.

As a result of Congress's inaction, between 2007 and 2008--1 year-- 1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount--1.5 million acres--of production has been lost.

American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons.

This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community.

California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry--the largest in America--was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year.

We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture.

Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California's asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met.

Colorado farmers have estimated their State's fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce.

As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages.

This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I hear this from your apple growers in New York, and I hear it from the dairy industry throughout America.

The situation is dire from coast to coast, and urgent action is required to halt these trends. I do not think we can afford to lose our entire agricultural industry because this has always been a central and sustainable part of our national economy. Our food is clean; there are strong pesticide controls in this country. I think most of us believe we would much prefer to buy American produce than foreign produce. Yet we may not have that opportunity.

When farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance. Jobs are being lost, and our economy is going to decline further as a result. Low-producing farms mean a lowered

local tax base--as farms no longer generate income and create jobs.

As can be seen from this graphic I have in the Chamber, for every job lost on a farm and ranch, the country loses approximately three jobs in related sectors that are supported by having the agricultural community in this country.

I have received a letter from the Port of Oakland, which depends heavily on agribusiness for its survival. According to the port, last year more than 750 metric tons of agricultural products, worth approximately $2.6 billion, were shipped through the port, representing 40 percent of the port's exports.

As these farms disappear, port jobs, basic jobs for people, also disappear. The central issue is not immigration; it is the bottom line of the American economy. I think Congress should be doing everything we can to prevent U.S. farms from closing down.

There is a solution, and it is this bill. This bill is well known, and this bill has been well supported in the past with a majority of votes. It is bipartisan. We can take it up and pass it today, and that would immediately help American farmers bolster the U.S. economy at a critical time.

The AgJOBS bill has two parts. The first meets the immediate needs of our farmers by creating a program that would provide an opportunity for experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status in this country.

The second part meets the long-term needs of farmers by reforming the H-2A program--that is the temporary worker program for the farm industry--so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers in to harvest their crops.

The first step of the program requires that undocumented agricultural workers apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate they have worked in American agriculture in the United States for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2008.

The second step requires that a blue cardholder work in the U.S. agricultural industry for an additional 150 workdays per year for at least 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years.

At the end of this time, a worker can obtain a green card and can continue to work in agriculture.

Workers participating in the program will be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, and that they have not been convicted of any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of bodily injury or harm to property.

Employment is verified through employer-issued itemized statements, pay stubs, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards or payment of taxes.

At the end of 5 years, those workers will be able to gain citizenship in this country.

The blue card visa program will be capped at 1.35 million blue cards over 5 years and sunsets after 5 years.

All blue cards will have encrypted, biometric identifiers, and contain other anticounterfeiting protections. This provides, in effect, a biometric identifier for 1.35 million people who are undocumented but in the country today.

AgJOBS would also streamline the current guest worker program, known as the H-2A program, which is currently unwieldy and ineffective.

Among other things, the bill will shorten the labor certification process, which now often takes 60 days, reducing the approval process to between 48 to 72 hours.

Advertising and positive recruitment for U.S. workers in the local labor market is required by filing a job notification with the local office of the State employment security agency.

Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt.

The adverse effect wage rate would be frozen for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard.

H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

The reforms to the H-2A agricultural worker program are especially important to meet the needs of year-round agricultural industries, such as dairy, which are not covered by the seasonal program.

Many say that dairy should use the seasonal H-2A program--but it does not work for that industry. They need workers 24/7, 365 days a year.

The National Milk Producers recently shared with me an economic study done by researchers at Texas A&M that will be released next week on the economic impacts of immigration on U.S. dairy farms. Over 5,000 dairy farms, surveyed nationally, with responses from 47 States, are in this study. Of these, 50 percent use immigrant labor. Immigrant labor now accounts for 62 percent of milk production in 47 States.

As can be seen from this chart I have in the Chamber, eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 1.34 million, milk production by 29.5 billion pounds, and the number of farms by 4,532. Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 61 percent.

This will be the result if we do not recognize what is a basic reality that farm and dairy communities depend on undocumented workers, who are the only workers who will do this kind of work.

This is hard for people to believe. However, a while back, we posted notices in the welfare departments of all 58 california counties that said: Agricultural worker jobs available. Please sign up here.

However, do you know how many workers came from this? Not a single one.

When I drive down the highway, down to Monterey, along the coast, and I go through the great Salinas Valley, I watch the row crops either being planted or sprayed or harvested. You see the workers in the field stooped over, hour after hour, in the sun, when it is 100 degrees or more in temperature, and you can see the specific nature of this type of work.

People think of this work as unskilled labor, but it is not. It is a learned skill. These workers have to move fast and be trained to use the farm equipment. They know how to work skillfully with their hands and move row after row, after row, down the field.

Last summer, a young pregnant woman working in the field collapsed from heat exhaustion and was taken to the hospital, where she died. Working in the field is back breaking, difficult work, and there are very few Americans who are willing to do this work.

The backbone of the agriculture industry in my State is the undocumented workforce and it is time to recognize that reality. I can't have--and Mr. President, you can't have--farmers standing in bread lines because they can't get the labor to plant or harvest their crops. The fields across America are increasingly being fallowed and this does not make sense.

Congress must stand tall and acknowledge that the basic workforce in the American agricultural community is undocumented farm labor. Undocumented workers take these jobs because they are professional and proud of the work that they do. I believe that is desirable.

This bill has previously passed with more than a majority in comprehensive immigration reform. It recognizes that the American farm industry is in crisis; that the industry is deteriorating; and that America is losing its produce. This bill stands up for American farmers and provides them with the workforce they deserve--American farmers like Toni Scully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA.

Toni Scully experienced a devastating harvest that left much of her pear crop rotting on the ground because she could not find workers in time for the harvest.

Early last year, I heard from Dewey Zabka, an onion and potato farmer in northern Colorado who, for the first time in his company's 50-year history, had to downsize 25 percent of his production.

In the State of New York, 800 farms and $700 million in sales may be forced to go out of business or scale back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, razed 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards last year because he could not get farm labor.

For the 2009 season, California growers who anticipate a shortage of reliable labor are deciding to move away

from planting permanent tree crops, including peach, plumb, nectarine, almond, pomegranate, and olive trees. Many of these farmers are supplementing these crops with pistachios, which can be harvested mechanically.

In June 2008, The Oregonian reported that Oregon's pear and onion industries are at risk of not being able to sustain production without consistent labor.

In Yuma County, AZ, where agricultural workers earn between $10 and $19 per hour, U.S. lettuce producers were unable to find enough laborers to harvest the spring crop of lettuce for 2008.

The truth is Americans will not do the work that sustains agriculture. It is hard, stooped labor requiring long and unpredictable hours. As a result, the labor shortage will be persistent. It is not going to get better next year, unless we have the courage and the guts to stand up for a major industry in America which deserves a steady labor base, particularly during these difficult economic times. And there are examples all over the nation that Americans simply won't fill these jobs.

H. Lee Showalter, a member of the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, points to the example of the largest Macintosh apple producer in New York, who is required to advertise for local labor before joining a migrant labor program. Of the 300 workers he needed to fill, only 1 American worker applied.

Willoway Nurseries, Inc. has been in business in northern Ohio since 1954. Willoway Nurseries has attempted to recruit local workers, though to no avail. General nursery workers on this farm earn a starting wage of $9.93 per hour. Yet it has been impossible for the nursery to recruit American help.

The Washington Farm Bureau reported that nearly 500 tons of apples were not picked in Washington State's apple harvests last year due to picker shortages. As Valoria H. Loveland, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to me:

The reality of our local labor market [is that] local

people who want to work are already employed, or are not

interested in doing the seasonal and physically demanding

work that characterizes our specialty crop production.

Experts estimate that nearly 80 percent of Florida's approximately 150,000 agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. This is a $1.6 billion a year business that produces up to 90 percent of the fresh domestic tomatoes that Americans eat between the months of December and May.

Many farmers have been in business for generations. Many farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, strawberries, and apricots, just to name a few. Without reform, we will continue to see the deterioration of American farms nationwide. This includes the possibility that certain vegetables and fruits will no longer grow in our Nation, where we have stricter rules and regulations for safety.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. As a result, our pears, our apples, our oranges will be increasingly coming from foreign sources. This is not what America wants, but it is what Congress's inaction compels.

The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce in this country, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, and from other countries that have sufficient labor. If our farmers want to stay in business, they will continue to go to Mexico and lease land and grow crops there. We are not doing our duty if we let this continue.

Steve Scaroni has been in the California lettuce and broccoli industry for over three decades. In recent years he has moved 2,000 acres and 500 jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, CA, to Guanajuato, Mexico. Steve wants his business to survive, and he can't hire or plant. If he can't plant, he can't pick. If he can't pick, he can't pack, and he won't be able to deliver a harvest. As a result, today Steve exports to the United States about 2 million pounds of lettuce a week. He has spent thousands of dollars to start up the new farms and to train workers to ensure that his crops meet U.S. food safety standards.

In Wilcox, AZ, Eurofresh Farms has transferred tomato crops and 150 workers to Sonora, Mexico, where tomatoes are grown and shipped to the U.S. on a daily basis.

Reforming the system means that we not only protect the agricultural industry, but also the health of this Nation. This past July, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that a variety of jalapeno and serrano peppers grown in Mexico caused an outbreak of salmonella in the United States. This outbreak was first thought to have originated in tomatoes.

The repercussions of the outbreak were felt on farms from coast to coast. In Georgia alone, it is estimated that the tomato scare cost local farmers about $14 million in total production value. Nationwide, the tomato industry lost at least $100 million due to lower prices and reduced demand. At the same time, over the last 15 years, imports of tomatoes have increased 179 percent. Right now, almost 40 percent of the tomatoes that we eat are grown in a foreign country. Yet tomato farmers are being forced to close shop.

The agriculture industry has been seeking a resolution for the labor crisis for the past 10 years. Mr. President, I have received over 50 letters of support for AgJOBS.

I am committed to working with the Obama administration, and Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy, as well as the House champions, Representatives Berman and Putnam, and others, to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops.

The time is now, and the solution is before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of AgJOBS and help restore America's farms before it is too late.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, letters of support, and list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my colleague from Alaska Senator Mark Begich, that will require all oil laden tankers in Prince William Sound to be escorted by at least two towing vessels or other vessels considered appropriate by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, carrying over 53 million gallons of crude oil, failed to turn back into the shipping lane after detouring to avoid ice, and ran aground on Bligh Reef. Alaskans will never forget that morning, waking up to hear about the worst oil spill and environmental disaster in U.S. history and living with the lasting impacts it has had on our State and residents.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident and determined probable causes for the accident. While it determined that it was primarily caused by human error of the captain and crew, it is my belief that we had also become complacent. It had been 12 years since we had begun to tanker oil out of Valdez and there had not been an incident. However, when the spill occurred, we became acutely aware of how woefully unprepared we were. The few prevention measures that were available were inadequate and the spill response and clean-up resources were seriously deficient. The oil eventually fouled some 1,300 miles of shoreline, stretching almost 500 miles, and covered an area of 11,000 square miles.

While the captain and crew were found at fault for the immediate cause of the spill, the incident also highlighted huge gaps in regulatory oversight of the oil industry. The response of Congress to the spill was passage of the Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990 or OPA90. The law overhauled shipping regulations, imposed new liability on the industry, required detailed response plans and added extra safeguards for shipping in Prince William Sound. Since the law took effect, annual oil spills were greatly reduced and lawmakers, marine experts, the oil industry and environmentalists credit the law for major improvements in U.S. oil and shipping industries.

Oil spill prevention and response have been greatly improved in Prince William Sound since the passage of OPA90. The U.S. Coast Guard now monitors fully laden tankers all the way through Prince William Sound. Specially trained marine pilots ride the ships for 25 of the 70 mile journey through the Sound and there are weather criteria for safe navigation. Contingency plans, skimmers, dispersants, oil barges and containment booms are all now readily available. An advanced ice- detecting radar system is also in place to monitor the icebergs that flow off of the mighty Columbia Glacier.

Two escort tugs accompany each tanker while passing through the Sound and are capable of assisting the tanker in the case of an emergency. This world class safety system recently

saw the 11,000th fully loaded tanker safely escorted through Prince William Sound. It is estimated that if the Exxon Valdez would have been double-hulled, the amount of the spill would have been reduced by more than half. While double hulled tankers are a huge improvement over single hulls, they do not prevent oil spills.

The legislation that Senator Begich and I are introducing today will maintain the existing escort system in place for all tankers. Presently, the federal requirement that every loaded tanker be accompanied through the Sound by two tugs applies only to single-hulled tankers. Even though, right now, double-hulled tankers are escorted by two vessels, federal law does not require them to be. The last single hulled tanker in the Prince William Sound fleet is expected to be retired from service by August 2012 and our legislation ensures all double hulled tankers will always be escorted by two tugs.

Although there have been a number of marine incidents and near misses since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, over the past 20 years, through the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard, industry, the State of Alaska, and the Prince William Sound Citizens Advisory Council to implement the requirements of OPA 90, there have been no major oil spills. Today, as a result, the marine transportation safety system established for Prince William Sound is regarded as among the most effective in the world. A key reason for that accomplishment is, in part, because of the safety benefits resulting from having dual escort vessels available to assist oil laden tankers transiting the Sound.

Section 4116 (c) of OPA 90 requires that single hulled tankers over 5,000 gross tons transporting oil in bulk in Prince William Sound, Alaska be escorted by at least two towing vessels or other vessels considered appropriate by the Secretary.

Subsection (a) makes applicable to double hulled tankers the requirement in existing law including regulations in 33 CFR Part 168 issued to implement that dual escort vessel requirement for single hulled tankers. The subsection leaves the dual escort vessel requirement in place for single hulled tankers. By making those cited regulations applicable to double hulled tankers, the U.S. Coast Guard would not need to issue new regulations as a result of the amendment to section 4116(c) of OPA 90. Rather, the Secretary is authorized and directed to ``carry out subparagraph (A)'' by order without notice and hearing, and without issuing new regulations, under section 553 of title 5 of the U.S. Code.

The dual escort plan, as it was constituted and in effect as of March 1, 2009 for Prince William Sound, is described in a document entitled, ``Vessel Emergency Response Plan'' or ``VERP'', and is on file with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

It is envisioned that, as advancements in technology are made in the future, any appropriate and warranted modifications to the VERP cited above implementing the dual escort practice as in effect as of March 1, 2009 and implementing the dual escort requirement in this section, including implementing regulations, will be made by the Prince William Sound Tanker Owners/Operators in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard, the State of Alaska, and the PWSRCAC and ratified and endorsed by the U.S. Coast Guard before being implemented.

The success of this escort system over the past 20 years has shown us that it must not be compromised. We cannot forget the lessons of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and allow ourselves to become complacent.

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

Mr. President, this week is National Police Week, the one week each year when tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the U.S. and some from foreign lands descend upon Washington, DC to pay homage to the fallen officers who gave their lives in the service of our communities.

All around Washington we see police cars and motorcycles from jurisdictions far and wide. Honor guards and drill teams. And many uniformed law enforcement officers with their families and kids.

At a hotel in Alexandria, VA, thousands of surviving families and coworkers of fallen law enforcement officers are gathered for the 2009 National Police Survivors Conference, sponsored by Concerns of Police Survivors. Today marks the 25th anniversary of the founding of Concerns of Police Survivors. I thank all of our colleagues for supporting S. Res. 138 commending that organization on the occasion of this significant anniversary. Tomorrow we observe Peace Officers Memorial Day with services at the U.S. Capitol.

Last evening the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund conducted its annual candlelight vigil at the memorial on Judiciary Square. I had the privilege of reading the name of a fallen officer, John Patrick Watson of the Kenai Police Department, at the 2004 candlelight vigil. I can attest that this annual event does justice to the memory of the 18,662 names inscribed on the memorial walls.

For fifty-one weeks out of every year those memorial walls display names. Just names. There is a story of heroism behind each of these names. Yet for 51 weeks out of each year, those stories are hidden from public view. Visitors to the memorial can discover but a few of these stories by viewing the displays at the Memorial Fund's tiny visitor's center.

During National Police Week the memorial comes alive with news clippings, photographs and patches--even the door of a police car-- placed at the memorial by law enforcement agencies and friends and family members of the fallen officers. These ad hoc memorials are removed at the end of Police Week. Those that are left behind become part of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's permanent collection. Someday more substantial parts of that collection will be displayed to the public at the National Law Enforcement Museum.

In 2000, Congress passed the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, Public Law 106-492, which set aside land across from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial for a National Law Enforcement Museum. The museum is to be operated by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

This National Law Enforcement Museum will tell the story of our law enforcement heroes. It will help ensure that visitors to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial have an opportunity to reflect on the ways that our fallen officers lived their lives, rather than the way those officers died.

Our colleagues may be interested to know that it was Vivian Eney- Cross, the surviving spouse of a fallen U.S. Capitol Police officer, who coined the phrase, ``It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived.''

The National Law Enforcement Museum Act requires that the museum be financed with private contributions. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund has been diligent in seeking private financing and hopes to break ground on the museum in November 2010 with a 2013 opening date.

I am hopeful that construction of the new museum will begin in 2010 but I am also realistic about the difficulties of raising private funds for worthy projects given current world economic conditions.

Fortunately, these economic conditions have neither deterred the Memorial Fund from asking for donations nor have they deterred prospective contributors with the ability to give, from giving. On May 4, the Memorial Fund announced a $1.5 million grant from the Verizon Foundation to develop educational and interactive technology programs at the planned museum.

However, I must call the attention of our colleagues to a critical deadline in the National Law Enforcement Museum Act. The act provides that the authority to construct a museum terminates on November 9, 2010 if construction has not begun by that date. Today, I offer legislation that will push the termination date out to November 9, 2013. This legislation will provide a cushion for the Memorial Fund to continue their fundraising efforts.

Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. Giving the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund a bit more time to arrange financing, if they need it, is a small price to pay. A small price to pay for the sacrifices our law enforcement officers and their families make every day.

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

Mr. President, I rise today--with my colleagues Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Congresswoman Alyson Schwartz--to introduce the Informed Consumer Choices in Health Care Act, legislation to hold insurance companies accountable by increasing transparency in insurance coverage and to provide consumers critical information about their health care so they can make informed decisions.

All Americans deserve affordable, meaningful health care coverage that meets their needs when they need it. However, there is an unsettling trend in America that is growing at an alarming rate-- hardworking Americans are suffering from serious economic hardship because of medical bills. There countless consumers all across the country who thought they were safe because they had health insurance coverage. Health insurance is meant to protect against the risk that, if you get sick, severely injured or require extensive medical care for one reason or another, it would not bankrupt you. However, the exact opposite is happening. People who thought they had coverage for health care events--small and large--found out much too late that they were not protected at all. The lack of insurance transparency leads consumers to purchase coverage that actually does not meet their needs and leads to disaster for them financially.

In June 2008, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on health insurance reform where we heard devastating testimony from Mrs. Lisa Kelly, who purchased a limited benefit plan that did not provide adequate coverage when she needed treatment for leukemia. Mrs. Kelly paid a monthly premium of $185 for AARP's Medical Advantage plan, underwritten by UnitedHealth Group, only to be told that she had to pay M.D. Anderson $105,000 up front, prior to starting her chemotherapy treatment. This situation left Ms. Kelly in the untenable situation of leaving her cancer untreated or finding a way to pay on a limited budget.

Medical bills are the second highest cause of bankruptcy in our country. It is estimated that 50 percent of all bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. Sixty-one percent of the 72 million adults under age 65 who had problems paying medical bills or were paying off medical debt in 2007 were insured at the time health care was provided. An additional 1.5 million families lose their homes every single year due to medical costs. This is simply unacceptable.

This is not just a coincidence. Plans that provide bare-bones coverage may be fine if you live in a bubble, but that is not the reality most Americans live in. If we as a nation are serious about protecting all Americans from the devastating financial consequences of serious illness, then Congress must hold the insurance industry accountable by arming consumers with comprehensive information about the benefits covered and not covered under their health plan, the true cost of their coverage, and the cost-sharing they are responsible for. This information should not be shrouded in the legalese of health insurance companies, but in clear language that is easy for consumers to understand. As we seek to give consumers greater coverage choices, we should also give them the necessary tools to understand those choices.

Another example of where the lack of insurance transparency has hurt consumers is in the experience of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Seniors and individuals with disabilities have simply been overwhelmed by the number of prescription drug plans offered--without any meaningful way to decipher the differences between plans in terms of benefits covered or cost-sharing. Over the last recess, I held a health care roundtable discussion in Charleston, which has more than 50 Medicare prescription drug plans for seniors and individuals with disabilities to choose from. I heard from countless West Virginians about the extreme difficulty they have wading through their prescription drug coverage options each and every plan year. The most compelling stories came from a retired chemical engineer and a retired attorney--both very smart individuals--who have had major problems determining what is and is not offered and how much they will have to pay out of their pockets for it.

When consumers buy cars, computers, or even cereal, they generally know what they are buying and how much it will cost. But, when it comes to making choices about health care coverage, it is often very difficult for consumers to tell what is actually covered and how much they will have to pay out-of-pocket in case of a serious illness or injury. Consumers cannot make meaningful choices if details about coverage are obscure or if the definitions of key terms such as ``hospitalization'', ``outpatient care'', or ``out-of-pocket limit'' vary from plan to plan.

The lack of health insurance transparency also contributes to administrative waste and complexity. According to the American Medical Association, more than half of health insurers do not provide physicians with the transparency necessary for an efficient claims processing system. Physicians and hospitals must divert substantial resources away from patient care to accurately determine patient insurance eligibility and benefit structure.

The black box in which insurers operate also provides them with the opportunity to use flawed payment structures, like the Ingenix database, to underpay patients who choose to get health care out of network. An investigation by the New York Attorney General and hearings conducted this spring by the Senate Commerce Committee revealed American consumers have been paying billions of dollars out of their own pockets for health care that the insurance companies should have been paying. The numbers the insurance industry relied on justify these under-payments came from a secretive health care data company called Ingenix. Insurers refused to tell patients or doctors how Ingenix came up with their payment amounts. And they didn't disclose that Ingenix was a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the Nation's second largest health insurance company. The Ingenix investigations show tat the health insurance industry is willing to go to great lengths to withhold accurate, objective health care payment information from American consumers. While they talk about transparency, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars

creating a reimbursement system that kept patients and doctors in the dark.

The U.S. Department of Labor currently lacks the capacity to oversee insurance industry compliance with federal health insurance laws and to provide states with the technical assistance necessary to effectively enforce federal standards for health insurance. These federal standards include crucial protections like the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act, GINA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, Michelle's Law, and mental health parity. As states continue to be overwhelmed by the increasing pressure of the recession and cost-cutting measures by insurers, state regulators are in desperate need for additional resources. In a 21st Century health system where there will be even greater health insurance choices, adequate federal oversight is absolutely critical.

There is no excuse for limiting access to information that has such widespread consequences for consumers. The Informed Consumer Choices in Health Care Act is the type of transformative legislation we need to address the very significant issues stemming from the lack of health insurance transparency. First, this legislation promotes transparency in coverage by providing crucial data and assistance to consumers and health care providers. This includes new ``Coverage Facts'' labels for insurance, similar to nutrition labels, which accurately portray the financial obligations of patients in a given year under various medical scenarios. The legislation also requires the development of consistent standards for insurance, including standard definitions of key insurance terms to be used in descriptions of plan benefits, so that consumers can make ``apples to apples'' comparisons of coverage options. Lastly, it strengthens insurance accountability and oversight by creating a new Office of Health Insurance Oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services, and provides new resources for states to help enforce federal standards.

In the most recent Presidential election, the voice of American voters was clear--they want medical care they can afford and health care coverage they can trust. The traditional role of insurers to hide or misrepresent insurance coverage options can longer be tolerated; therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for informed consumer decisions in health care and support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I also rise today in strong support of the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2009, also known as AgJOBS.

The distinguished Senator from California has already eloquently explained what the AgJOBS bill is, what it seeks to accomplish and why America needs this Congress to pass AgJOBS as soon as possible.

I simply wish to briefly explain to the people of my home State of New York--as, their Senator--and to all of the American people, as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, why I support AgJOBS and why I think they should support AgJOBS too.

Simply put, the status quo in our agricultural industry is unsustainable.

What is the status quo? All around my home State of New York, and across the country, family farmers are trying to do the right thing and operate lawful and successful farms.

Virtually every family farmer I have met in my travels across New York has aggressively tried to hire Americans to work in their nurseries, orchards, farms, and vineyards.

For instance, my friends in the Long Island Farm Bureau can tell you that more than half of their members pay more than $12-$15 per hour per worker, and actively seek to hire American workers, often arranging buses to recruit Americans into Long Island to work.

But what these family farmers are finding is that--even in this bad economy, even if they offer Americans twice or sometime three times the minimum wage and provide benefits--American workers simply won't stay in these jobs for more than a few days.

Why don't Americans want to stay in many of these agricultural jobs? Let me share with you the description of the working conditions for agricultural workers as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their 2008-2009 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Here is their description:

Much of the work of farmworkers and laborers on farms and

ranches is physically strenuous and takes place outdoors in

all kinds of weather.

Harvesting fruits and vegetables, for example, may require

much bending, stooping, and lifting. Workers may have limited

access to sanitation facilities while working in the field

and drinking water may also be limited.

Farm work does not lend itself to a regular 40-hour

workweek. Work cannot be delayed when crops must be planted

or harvested or when animals must be sheltered and fed.

Long hours and weekend work is common in these jobs. For

example, farmworkers and agricultural equipment operators may

work 6- or 7-days a week during planting and harvesting

seasons.

Many agricultural worker jobs are seasonal in nature, so

some workers also do other jobs during slow seasons. Migrant

farmworkers, who move from location to location as crops

ripen, live an unsettled lifestyle, which can be

stressful.

Farmworkers risk exposure to pesticides and other hazardous

chemicals sprayed on crops or plants.

This is certainly not the description of a life most Americans would want for themselves, much less for their children. And so what the family farmers in New York experience is that even when Americans take these jobs, the vast majority quit after only a few days.

So who is stepping in to take many of these difficult agricultural jobs? Immigrants who need these jobs to support the families they left behind in their native country.

But the vast majority of the immigrants working in agricultural jobs are undocumented. For this reason, family farmers are often required to choose between hiring undocumented workers or going out of business.

AgJOBS solves this problem in a way that is fair to everyone.

AgJOBS requires current undocumented agricultural workers to pay a fine, pay their taxes, undergo thorough background checks, and legalize their status in order to keep their jobs. If these workers refuse to legalize their status, or have any kind of criminal record, they will be deported.

AgJOBS provides America's family farmers with access to legal workers and removes the burden on farmers to perform the role of Federal immigration enforcement officials.

But just as importantly, AgJOBS places increased penalties on farmers who hire illegal aliens and places penalties on farmers who provide poor working conditions for their employees. This will make it far likelier that Americans who want these jobs will stay in these jobs for longer periods of time.

For this reason, AgJOBS is supported by hundreds of agriculture, business, labor, religious, and ethnic affinity groups.

It is my profound belief that Americans are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration, and will support policies that are consistent with this basic principle.

AgJOBS fits this description. It severely penalizes farmers who will continue to hire illegal immigrants and who choose to exploit their workers. But it also provides farmers with the ability to hire Americans and legal immigrants who will take these jobs.

The current situation is simply untenable. Every day, American farms are closing and America has to import more and more food from abroad because it is far cheaper to buy foreign food than it is to produce food here.

For every farmworker job we lose to another country, America loses three to four other American jobs in packaging, processing, supplies, equipment, and other related sectors.

Failure to pass AgJOBS will continue to result in devastating consequences for our economy.

In New York alone, the Farm Credit Association of New York estimates that if AgJOBS is not passed, New York State could lose in excess of 900 farms, $195 million in value of agricultural production, and over 200,000 acres in production in agriculture over the next 24 months.

Finally, our national security is threatened when we no longer are able to ensure that we can sufficiently feed our people with American food. Without AgJOBS, we place our Nation's food security at risk from those who might seek to do harm to America.

This situation can and should be remedied. AgJOBS provides the remedy, and I am therefore proud to be an original cosponsor of AgJOBS and strongly support its passage.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator Gillibrand of New York.

It is by now well established that poor diet and obesity, as well as related conditions such as heart disease, have reached epidemic levels. The majority of the U.S. population is either overweight or obese. The incidence of type II diabetes has reached levels not even imaginable 20 years ago, with some research suggesting that one in three children will develop the disease by adulthood.

There is no single solution to this complex issue of poor nutrition and diet related diseases. Policymakers looking for a silver bullet will be disappointed. But inaction is not an option. We must start taking meaningful steps to address this growing problem by giving people the tools necessary to live healthier lifestyles. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this bill today to extend nutrition labeling beyond packaged foods to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as food in vending machines. This common-sense idea will give consumers a needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve a healthier lifestyle. It is a positive step toward addressing the obesity epidemic.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been tremendous. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets.

Unfortunately, when Congress first passed the NLEA, it excluded restaurants from any labeling requirements. Since that time, restaurants have become more and more important to Americans' diet and health. Americans consume a third of their calories and spend half of their food dollars at restaurants at the very time when nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants, yet, while they have good nutrition information in supermarkets, at restaurants they can only guess.

In recent years, some states and cities have led the way on menu labeling. New York City has already implemented a menu labeling initiative that requires the disclosure of calories on menus and menu boards at chain restaurants. Consumer surveys show that

the residents of New York are enthusiastic about the initiative. The experience in New York has also underscored the feasibility and practicality of the endeavor. Despite earlier concerns about implementation, the vast majority of restaurants in New York City complied with the law quickly and without incident. Those with particular challenges were assisted by the New York City Health Department to enable them to comply with the law.

But New York City is not the only such initiative. Other cities such as Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco have followed suit. Just last fall, the State of California became the first State in the Nation to enact a statewide menu labeling law, and Massachusetts became the second yesterday. Clearly there is not only a public health rationale for menu labeling, but consumer demand as well.

As I already stated, I harbor no illusions that any one policy will turn the tide on obesity and poor diet in our country, but if we are ever to reorient our society and our health care system in the U.S. away from treatment and towards a stronger focus on prevention, we must build prevention into the very fabric of society. We must provide consumers with the tools and the support that they need to make the healthy choice the right choice. The MEAL Act is one means by which to accomplish that goal, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.