Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Protecting Our Youth From Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013 along with my colleagues and friends, Senators Klobuchar, Manchin and Schumer. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with an important new tool to address the growing threat posed by dangerous, synthetic drugs.

Synthetic drugs are unregulated substances designed by scientists to mimic the effects of controlled substances. They are packaged in a manner which is intended to appeal to our Nation's youth and are sold at gas stations, head shops and over the Internet.

Manufacturers of these products boldly seek to circumvent Federal law by marketing their merchandise as innocuous items like potpourri, incense, bath salts and plant food and stating that they are ``not intended for human consumption.'' Make no mistake; the individuals who produce, distribute and sell these products are nothing more than drug traffickers who seek to profit from the human use of these drug products.

When Congress outlawed several of these synthetic drugs last year, traffickers did not stop producing them. Instead, they made slight alterations to the chemical structure of the illegal drugs to skirt the law. By doing this, the traffickers produced ``controlled substance analogues.''

The bill I am introducing today will give law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute individuals who produce and distribute controlled substance analogues.

Many of the controlled substance analogues on the market today are designed to mimic the effects of THC, the principal chemical in marijuana. The Monitoring the Future survey, which tracks the drug- using behaviors of adolescents, began studying the use of synthetic marijuana in in 2011. Their 2012 report found that 11.3 percent of 12th graders had used synthetic marijuana in the prior 12 months. Aside from alcohol and tobacco, synthetic marijuana was the second most widely used drug among 12th graders after marijuana.

There are many other ``families'' of controlled substance analogues which

have been encountered in the market place. They mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, PCP and LSD and therefore produce strong stimulant and/or hallucinogenic effects when ingested.

Altogether, there are an estimated 200 controlled substance analogues available today. The threat is global and is rapidly expanding.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration has made progress combatting this threat. Two nationwide operations targeting designer synthetic drugs--one in 2012 dubbed Operation LogJam and the other which culminated approximately two weeks ago named Operation Synergy-- demonstrate this progress. These operations resulted in at least 318 arrests; 681 executed search warrants, including at least 29 for drug manufacturing facilities; $93 million in cash and assets seized; and the removal of 10 tons of synthetic drugs from the supply chain.

Today, I am introducing a bill that will put these drug traffickers on notice that if they seek to develop products containing controlled substance analogues that put our nation's youth in harm's way, then they will be brought to justice. This will be accomplished by creating a new tool by which the administration can designate, and publish, an administrative list of outlawed controlled substance analogues.

First, the Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013 will establish an inter-agency committee of scientists, headed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, which will be responsible for establishing and maintaining an administrative list of controlled substance analogues. The Committee is structured so that it can respond quickly and robustly to the threat.

Second, DEA officials have informed my staff that virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive as bulk powders from outside our borders. My bill will make it illegal to import a controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is intended for non-human use.

Third, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend the federal sentencing guidelines for violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled substance analogues.

Finally, it is important to note that controlled substance analogues are not controlled substances, meaning that the registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Controlled Substances Act do not apply to those who seek to perform bona fide scientific research or use a controlled substance analogue for non-human industrial applications.

This bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who continue to circumvent our Nation's laws. Congress recognizes that no matter how you alter the chemical structure of synthetic drugs to get around the law, they remain dangerous and should not be available for human consumption.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Protecting Our Youth From Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013 along with my colleagues and friends, Senators Klobuchar, Manchin and Schumer. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with an important new tool to address the growing threat posed by dangerous, synthetic drugs.

Synthetic drugs are unregulated substances designed by scientists to mimic the effects of controlled substances. They are packaged in a manner which is intended to appeal to our Nation's youth and are sold at gas stations, head shops and over the Internet.

Manufacturers of these products boldly seek to circumvent Federal law by marketing their merchandise as innocuous items like potpourri, incense, bath salts and plant food and stating that they are ``not intended for human consumption.'' Make no mistake; the individuals who produce, distribute and sell these products are nothing more than drug traffickers who seek to profit from the human use of these drug products.

When Congress outlawed several of these synthetic drugs last year, traffickers did not stop producing them. Instead, they made slight alterations to the chemical structure of the illegal drugs to skirt the law. By doing this, the traffickers produced ``controlled substance analogues.''

The bill I am introducing today will give law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute individuals who produce and distribute controlled substance analogues.

Many of the controlled substance analogues on the market today are designed to mimic the effects of THC, the principal chemical in marijuana. The Monitoring the Future survey, which tracks the drug- using behaviors of adolescents, began studying the use of synthetic marijuana in in 2011. Their 2012 report found that 11.3 percent of 12th graders had used synthetic marijuana in the prior 12 months. Aside from alcohol and tobacco, synthetic marijuana was the second most widely used drug among 12th graders after marijuana.

There are many other ``families'' of controlled substance analogues which

have been encountered in the market place. They mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, PCP and LSD and therefore produce strong stimulant and/or hallucinogenic effects when ingested.

Altogether, there are an estimated 200 controlled substance analogues available today. The threat is global and is rapidly expanding.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration has made progress combatting this threat. Two nationwide operations targeting designer synthetic drugs--one in 2012 dubbed Operation LogJam and the other which culminated approximately two weeks ago named Operation Synergy-- demonstrate this progress. These operations resulted in at least 318 arrests; 681 executed search warrants, including at least 29 for drug manufacturing facilities; $93 million in cash and assets seized; and the removal of 10 tons of synthetic drugs from the supply chain.

Today, I am introducing a bill that will put these drug traffickers on notice that if they seek to develop products containing controlled substance analogues that put our nation's youth in harm's way, then they will be brought to justice. This will be accomplished by creating a new tool by which the administration can designate, and publish, an administrative list of outlawed controlled substance analogues.

First, the Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013 will establish an inter-agency committee of scientists, headed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, which will be responsible for establishing and maintaining an administrative list of controlled substance analogues. The Committee is structured so that it can respond quickly and robustly to the threat.

Second, DEA officials have informed my staff that virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive as bulk powders from outside our borders. My bill will make it illegal to import a controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is intended for non-human use.

Third, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend the federal sentencing guidelines for violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled substance analogues.

Finally, it is important to note that controlled substance analogues are not controlled substances, meaning that the registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Controlled Substances Act do not apply to those who seek to perform bona fide scientific research or use a controlled substance analogue for non-human industrial applications.

This bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who continue to circumvent our Nation's laws. Congress recognizes that no matter how you alter the chemical structure of synthetic drugs to get around the law, they remain dangerous and should not be available for human consumption.

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

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Chambliss and myself we wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Michael J. Morell, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, who will leave his current position on Friday, August 9, 2013, and retire at the end of September. Mr. Morell's career spans over 33 years in the CIA during which he distinguished himself as a patriot, leader, and friend of the Senate.

Michael Morell deserves the gratitude of the entire Nation for his three decades of selfless service at the CIA.

An Ohio native, Mr. Morell received a B.A. degree in economics from the University of Akron in 1980 and an M.A. in economics from Georgetown University in 1984.

Since joining the CIA in 1980, Michael's talents lifted him from being an analyst covering international energy issues to some of the toughest assignments that the CIA has to offer: Presidential Briefer, Associate Deputy Director, Director of Intelligence, Deputy Director, and toughest of all, twice he was called upon to serve as Acting Director. In each assignment, Michael provided exemplary leadership for the men and women of the Agency and demonstrated he was someone who knew how to manage operations, sharpen analysis, invest in new technologies, and assure the smooth functioning of the entire CIA workforce.

As the President's Daily Briefer, Michael was at President Bush's side on that horrific day in September 2001. He was there at President Obama's side as Deputy CIA Director when the United States brought justice to Osama bin Ladin in May 2011. These are only two examples out of many where Michael helped guide the Agency and the Nation through some of the most complex and challenging times in our recent history.

As the Acting Director and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael has had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, mature judgment, frank and sage advice, and interpersonal skills earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His sound judgment and candor also directly contributed to his successful representation of the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress.

As the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, we have had additional opportunities to see Michael's contributions to this Nation. We cannot speak of them here, but the American people should know that his service goes beyond the public record, and has spanned the globe.

Throughout his career, Michael Morell demonstrated a profound commitment to our Nation, selfless service

to the CIA, deep concern for Agency officers and their families, and a commitment to excellence. Michael is the consummate intelligence professional whose performance personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation expects from its professional intelligence officers.

Mr. President, we ask our colleagues to join us in thanking Mr. Michael Morell for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the United States. We also thank Michael's wife Mary Beth and his children, Sarah, Luke, and Peter, for their support and understanding, as well as their sacrifices in allowing Michael to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation against those who would do us harm.

We wish the Morell family all the best in the future.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Chambliss and myself we wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Timothy P. Ireland, Deputy Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, OCA, at the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, who is retiring after a long and distinguished career of government service.

Tim is not well known to the American people, but his quiet service and unflappable demeanor here made him a friend to the Intelligence Committee and staff

After graduating from the University of Southern California in 1970 with a bachelor's degree in international relations, Tim continued his education, earning a master's degree and Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. After teaching for 2 years, Tim joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1981, as an officer in the Directorate of Intelligence, focusing on European political and military affairs.

Tim worked in a number of analytic and management positions in the Directorate of Intelligence, authored a National Intelligence Estimate, and served on the President's Daily Brief staff.

Throughout his career, Tim worked in both policy and intelligence community positions. He spent 2 years in the Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military affairs working on arms control and strategic defense issues. For nearly 4 years he worked in the National Intelligence Council. Tim entered the field of resource management in 1991 with a tour in the Office of Comptroller. He subsequently served in senior resource management positions in the Directorate of Intelligence, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, CFO.

In this last capacity, Tim proved invaluable to the committee in understanding the CIA's programs and finances, giving direct, accurate answers to difficult questions. Twice, Tim served as the Acting Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, serving as the CIA's primary interface with congressional oversight committees, leadership, and Members. While serving in the offices of OCA and CFO, Tim was known for keeping the Congress fully and currently informed.

In these capacities, Tim had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, thoughtfulness, and frank responses earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His friendly demeanor and candor helped him successfully represent the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress.

Tim Ireland throughout his career has shown a deep commitment to our national security, proud service to the CIA, and a calm yet thorough performance in his work. His more than 32 years of service as an intelligence officer has helped to keep our Nation and its citizens safe.

Mr. President, we ask our colleagues to join us in thanking Mr. Tim Ireland for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the United States. We also want to thank Tim's wife Andy for her support and understanding, as well as her sacrifices in allowing Tim to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation.

We wish Tim and Andy Ireland all the best in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Administration Act.

This bipartisan legislation, which has been years in the making, is also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander.

This legislation represents our best attempt to establish a workable, long term nuclear waste policy for the United States, something our Nation lacks today, by implementing the unanimous recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

First, the bill would create an independent entity, the Nuclear Waste Administration, with the sole purpose of managing nuclear waste.

Second, the bill would authorize the siting and construction of three types of waste facilities: a ``pilot'' waste storage facility for waste from shut down reactors, additional storage facilities for waste from other facilities, and permanent repositories to dispose of nuclear waste.

Third, the bill creates a consent-based siting process for both storage facilities and repositories, based on the successful efforts to build waste facilities in other countries.

The legislation requires that local, tribal, and State governments must consent to host waste facilities by signing incentive agreements, assuring that waste is only stored in the States and communities that want and welcome it.

Fourth, the bill would direct the fees currently collected from nuclear power ratepayers to fund nuclear waste management, currently about $750 M annually, into a new Working Capital Fund available to the Nuclear Waste Administration to fund construction of waste facilities.

Finally, the legislation ensures that the new Nuclear Waste Administration will be held accountable for meeting Federal responsibilities and stewarding Federal dollars.

The Nuclear Waste Administrator will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Administration will be overseen by a five-member Nuclear Waste Oversight Board, modeled on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board. The administration will have an Inspector General. The administration will not be able to access the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund until it reaches agreement with a host community. Appropriators may limit the administration's spending, if necessary. Finally, if the agency fails to open a nuclear waste facility by 2025, additional funding will cease.

The United States has 104 operating commercial nuclear power reactors that supply \1/5\ of our electricity and nearly 75 percent of our emissions-free power.

However, production of this nuclear power has a significant downside: it produces nuclear waste that will take hundreds of thousands of years to decay. Unlike most nuclear nations, the United States has no program to consolidate waste in centralized facilities.

Instead, we leave the waste next to operating and shut down reactors sitting in pools of water or in cement and steel dry casks. Today, approximately 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at commercial reactor sites. This total grows by 2,000 metric tons each year.

In addition to commercial nuclear waste, we must also address waste generated from creating our nuclear weapons stockpile and powering our Navy.

The byproducts of nuclear energy represent some of the nation's most hazardous materials, but for decades we have failed to find a solution for their safe storage and permanent disposal. Most experts agree that this failure is not a scientific problem or an engineering impossibility; it is a failure of government.

Although the Federal Government signed contracts committing to pick up commercial waste beginning in 1998, the Federal government's waste program has failed to take possession of a single fuel assembly.

Our government has not honored its contractual obligations. We have been sued, and we have lost. So today, the Federal taxpayer is paying power plants to store the waste at reactor sites all over the nation. The cost of this liability is forecast to reach $20 billion by 2020.

As we try to manage our growing national debt, we simply cannot tolerate continued inaction.

In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future completed a two-year comprehensive study and published unanimous recommendations for fixing our Nation's broken nuclear waste management program.

The commission found that the only long-term, technically feasible solution for this waste is to dispose of it in a permanent underground repository. Until such a facility is opened, which will take many decades, spent nuclear fuel will continue to be an expensive, dangerous burden.

That is why the commission also recommended that we establish an interim storage facility program to begin consolidating this dangerous waste, in addition to working on a permanent repository.

Finally, after studying the experience of all nuclear nations, the commission found that siting these facilities is most likely to succeed if the host states and communities are welcome and willing partners, not adversaries. The commission recommended that we adopt a consent based nuclear facility siting process.

Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Alexander, and I introduce this legislation in order to begin implementing those recommendations, putting us on a dual track toward interim and permanent storage facilities. The bill also reflects much work by former Senator Bingaman, who put forward a similar proposal as one of the last bills he wrote.

In my view, one of the most important provisions in this legislation is the pilot program to begin consolidating nuclear waste at safer, more cost-efficient centralized facilities on an interim basis. The legislation will facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste in above- ground canisters called dry casks. These facilities would be located in willing communities, away from population centers, and on thoroughly assessed sites.

Some members of Congress argue that we should ignore the need to interim storage sites and instead push forward with a plan to open Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site.

Others argue that we should push forward only with repository plans in new locations.

But the debate over Yucca Mountain, a controversial waste repository proposed in the Nevada desert, which lacks State approval, is unlikely to be settled any time soon.

I believe the debate over a permanent repository does not need to be settled in order to recognize the need for interim storage. Even if Congress and a future president reverse course and move forward with Yucca Mountain, interim storage facilities would still be an essential component of a badly needed national nuclear waste strategy.

By creating interim storage sites, a top recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission, we would begin reducing Federal liability while providing breathing room to site and build a permanent repository.

Interim storage facilities could also provide alternative storage locations in emergency situations requiring spent nuclear fuel to be moved quickly from a reactor site.

Both short- and long-term storage programs are vital. Permanently disposing of our current inventory of nuclear waste will take several decades.

Because of that long timeline, interim storage facilities allow us to achieve significant cost savings for taxpayers and utility ratepayers by shuttering a number of nuclear plants.

One thing is certain: inaction is the most costly and least safe option.

Our longstanding stalemate is costly to taxpayers, utility ratepayers and communities that are involuntarily saddled with waste after local nuclear power plants have shut down.

It leaves nuclear waste all over the country, stored in all different ways.

It is long overdue for the government to honor its obligation to safely dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste.

This will be a long journey, but we must take the first step.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act.

This legislation puts in place reasonable safeguards on when and how antibiotics can be used in agriculture.

Few people realize that antibiotics are used in animal agriculture; even fewer realize the scope of the problem.

Last year 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in the U.S. for meat and poultry production. That is four times what was used in all forms of human medicine.

But there is more to be concerned about. The vast majority of these drugs are fed to healthy livestock and poultry, with little or no veterinary oversight. The drugs are used for growth promotion, to fatten up animals before slaughter.

At these low levels, the doses are not large enough, or powerful enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside the animal's body. The small dose only kills off the weakest bacteria, leaving the strongest, most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce.

It creates a perfect storm for antibiotic resistance.

This isn't just a problem for the animals. These antibiotic resistant pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities.

A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 25 percent of the meat was contaminated with pathogens that were resistant to three or more type of antibiotics.

Antibiotics are the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human medicine. They are capable of wiping out a wide variety of bacterial infections. But we are in danger of losing this weapon in the fight against infectious diseases.

Tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic resistant infections. Unfortunately, we are learning the hard way that these precious, lifesaving drugs no longer work as well as they once did.

That is why I am so committed to this bill, to preserve the efficacy of these drugs that save lives every day.

The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act directs the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the use of antibiotics in ways that accelerate antibiotic resistance.

The bill requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases, not just to fatten their livestock.

But the bill takes a nuanced approach; the restrictions only apply to the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health. Any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this legislation.

The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act also preserves the ability of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals. If a veterinarian identifies a sick animal, or a herd of animals that are likely to become sick, there are no restrictions on what drugs can be used.

This legislation is not revolutionary. Fifteen years ago Denmark became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the food and water of livestock. The entire European Union

followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics.

But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and it is time for a wakeup call.

Put simply--irresponsible use of antibiotics endangers us all. And if the drugs can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all.

Some still refuse to accept the facts; they say that there is no evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in humans.

They are wrong.

Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified in the House Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., increased hospitalization.''

Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, also testified at the hearing and agreed with Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.''

Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support this conclusion. In response to public health concerns about the rise of resistance to the antibiotic cephalosporin in Salmonella and E. coli, chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent.

Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even while the number and severity of these infections are increasing.

One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 percent.

CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were fatal. The primary reason is that MRSA is virtually immune to almost every antibiotic used in modern medicine.

By comparison, during the same year there were 17,011 deaths due to AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning.

Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the misuse of drugs in human medicine.

But MRSA is infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital setting.

There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting people is coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among ST398 strains which make treatment especially challenging.

A study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital-acquired MRSA strains and community-acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are trending in opposite directions.

The study found that community-acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006.

By contrast, hospital-acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent over this same time period.

Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or in restaurants.

While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

Since the recent data released by the FDA confirm that more than 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are for meat and poultry producing animals, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

This legislation will very likely reduce the number of resistant infections and will very likely save lives.

But some still claim that this legislation may make our food supply less safe. They argue that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and healthy animals make for healthy food.

But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. More than 375 public, consumer and environmental health groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the legislation.

This bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, their families, and every one of us who consume the food they produce.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical reforms.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Administration Act.

This bipartisan legislation, which has been years in the making, is also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander.

This legislation represents our best attempt to establish a workable, long term nuclear waste policy for the United States, something our Nation lacks today, by implementing the unanimous recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

First, the bill would create an independent entity, the Nuclear Waste Administration, with the sole purpose of managing nuclear waste.

Second, the bill would authorize the siting and construction of three types of waste facilities: a ``pilot'' waste storage facility for waste from shut down reactors, additional storage facilities for waste from other facilities, and permanent repositories to dispose of nuclear waste.

Third, the bill creates a consent-based siting process for both storage facilities and repositories, based on the successful efforts to build waste facilities in other countries.

The legislation requires that local, tribal, and State governments must consent to host waste facilities by signing incentive agreements, assuring that waste is only stored in the States and communities that want and welcome it.

Fourth, the bill would direct the fees currently collected from nuclear power ratepayers to fund nuclear waste management, currently about $750 M annually, into a new Working Capital Fund available to the Nuclear Waste Administration to fund construction of waste facilities.

Finally, the legislation ensures that the new Nuclear Waste Administration will be held accountable for meeting Federal responsibilities and stewarding Federal dollars.

The Nuclear Waste Administrator will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Administration will be overseen by a five-member Nuclear Waste Oversight Board, modeled on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board. The administration will have an Inspector General. The administration will not be able to access the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund until it reaches agreement with a host community. Appropriators may limit the administration's spending, if necessary. Finally, if the agency fails to open a nuclear waste facility by 2025, additional funding will cease.

The United States has 104 operating commercial nuclear power reactors that supply \1/5\ of our electricity and nearly 75 percent of our emissions-free power.

However, production of this nuclear power has a significant downside: it produces nuclear waste that will take hundreds of thousands of years to decay. Unlike most nuclear nations, the United States has no program to consolidate waste in centralized facilities.

Instead, we leave the waste next to operating and shut down reactors sitting in pools of water or in cement and steel dry casks. Today, approximately 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at commercial reactor sites. This total grows by 2,000 metric tons each year.

In addition to commercial nuclear waste, we must also address waste generated from creating our nuclear weapons stockpile and powering our Navy.

The byproducts of nuclear energy represent some of the nation's most hazardous materials, but for decades we have failed to find a solution for their safe storage and permanent disposal. Most experts agree that this failure is not a scientific problem or an engineering impossibility; it is a failure of government.

Although the Federal Government signed contracts committing to pick up commercial waste beginning in 1998, the Federal government's waste program has failed to take possession of a single fuel assembly.

Our government has not honored its contractual obligations. We have been sued, and we have lost. So today, the Federal taxpayer is paying power plants to store the waste at reactor sites all over the nation. The cost of this liability is forecast to reach $20 billion by 2020.

As we try to manage our growing national debt, we simply cannot tolerate continued inaction.

In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future completed a two-year comprehensive study and published unanimous recommendations for fixing our Nation's broken nuclear waste management program.

The commission found that the only long-term, technically feasible solution for this waste is to dispose of it in a permanent underground repository. Until such a facility is opened, which will take many decades, spent nuclear fuel will continue to be an expensive, dangerous burden.

That is why the commission also recommended that we establish an interim storage facility program to begin consolidating this dangerous waste, in addition to working on a permanent repository.

Finally, after studying the experience of all nuclear nations, the commission found that siting these facilities is most likely to succeed if the host states and communities are welcome and willing partners, not adversaries. The commission recommended that we adopt a consent based nuclear facility siting process.

Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Alexander, and I introduce this legislation in order to begin implementing those recommendations, putting us on a dual track toward interim and permanent storage facilities. The bill also reflects much work by former Senator Bingaman, who put forward a similar proposal as one of the last bills he wrote.

In my view, one of the most important provisions in this legislation is the pilot program to begin consolidating nuclear waste at safer, more cost-efficient centralized facilities on an interim basis. The legislation will facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste in above- ground canisters called dry casks. These facilities would be located in willing communities, away from population centers, and on thoroughly assessed sites.

Some members of Congress argue that we should ignore the need to interim storage sites and instead push forward with a plan to open Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site.

Others argue that we should push forward only with repository plans in new locations.

But the debate over Yucca Mountain, a controversial waste repository proposed in the Nevada desert, which lacks State approval, is unlikely to be settled any time soon.

I believe the debate over a permanent repository does not need to be settled in order to recognize the need for interim storage. Even if Congress and a future president reverse course and move forward with Yucca Mountain, interim storage facilities would still be an essential component of a badly needed national nuclear waste strategy.

By creating interim storage sites, a top recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission, we would begin reducing Federal liability while providing breathing room to site and build a permanent repository.

Interim storage facilities could also provide alternative storage locations in emergency situations requiring spent nuclear fuel to be moved quickly from a reactor site.

Both short- and long-term storage programs are vital. Permanently disposing of our current inventory of nuclear waste will take several decades.

Because of that long timeline, interim storage facilities allow us to achieve significant cost savings for taxpayers and utility ratepayers by shuttering a number of nuclear plants.

One thing is certain: inaction is the most costly and least safe option.

Our longstanding stalemate is costly to taxpayers, utility ratepayers and communities that are involuntarily saddled with waste after local nuclear power plants have shut down.

It leaves nuclear waste all over the country, stored in all different ways.

It is long overdue for the government to honor its obligation to safely dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste.

This will be a long journey, but we must take the first step.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act.

This legislation puts in place reasonable safeguards on when and how antibiotics can be used in agriculture.

Few people realize that antibiotics are used in animal agriculture; even fewer realize the scope of the problem.

Last year 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in the U.S. for meat and poultry production. That is four times what was used in all forms of human medicine.

But there is more to be concerned about. The vast majority of these drugs are fed to healthy livestock and poultry, with little or no veterinary oversight. The drugs are used for growth promotion, to fatten up animals before slaughter.

At these low levels, the doses are not large enough, or powerful enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside the animal's body. The small dose only kills off the weakest bacteria, leaving the strongest, most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce.

It creates a perfect storm for antibiotic resistance.

This isn't just a problem for the animals. These antibiotic resistant pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities.

A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 25 percent of the meat was contaminated with pathogens that were resistant to three or more type of antibiotics.

Antibiotics are the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human medicine. They are capable of wiping out a wide variety of bacterial infections. But we are in danger of losing this weapon in the fight against infectious diseases.

Tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic resistant infections. Unfortunately, we are learning the hard way that these precious, lifesaving drugs no longer work as well as they once did.

That is why I am so committed to this bill, to preserve the efficacy of these drugs that save lives every day.

The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act directs the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the use of antibiotics in ways that accelerate antibiotic resistance.

The bill requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases, not just to fatten their livestock.

But the bill takes a nuanced approach; the restrictions only apply to the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health. Any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this legislation.

The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act also preserves the ability of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals. If a veterinarian identifies a sick animal, or a herd of animals that are likely to become sick, there are no restrictions on what drugs can be used.

This legislation is not revolutionary. Fifteen years ago Denmark became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the food and water of livestock. The entire European Union

followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics.

But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and it is time for a wakeup call.

Put simply--irresponsible use of antibiotics endangers us all. And if the drugs can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all.

Some still refuse to accept the facts; they say that there is no evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in humans.

They are wrong.

Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified in the House Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., increased hospitalization.''

Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, also testified at the hearing and agreed with Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.''

Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support this conclusion. In response to public health concerns about the rise of resistance to the antibiotic cephalosporin in Salmonella and E. coli, chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent.

Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even while the number and severity of these infections are increasing.

One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 percent.

CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were fatal. The primary reason is that MRSA is virtually immune to almost every antibiotic used in modern medicine.

By comparison, during the same year there were 17,011 deaths due to AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning.

Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the misuse of drugs in human medicine.

But MRSA is infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital setting.

There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting people is coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among ST398 strains which make treatment especially challenging.

A study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital-acquired MRSA strains and community-acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are trending in opposite directions.

The study found that community-acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006.

By contrast, hospital-acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent over this same time period.

Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or in restaurants.

While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

Since the recent data released by the FDA confirm that more than 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are for meat and poultry producing animals, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

This legislation will very likely reduce the number of resistant infections and will very likely save lives.

But some still claim that this legislation may make our food supply less safe. They argue that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and healthy animals make for healthy food.

But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. More than 375 public, consumer and environmental health groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the legislation.

This bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, their families, and every one of us who consume the food they produce.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical reforms.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of S. 744, the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill before the Senate.

Through the process of negotiation and compromise, including 212 amendments that were considered during the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee markup last month and now much discussion on the Senate floor, a workable, tough--but fair--bill sits before us, ripe for us to take action on a problem that has gone unresolved for far too long.

Colleagues, this is our last, best chance to achieve immigration reform.

The bill before the Senate provides long-sought-after solutions that will help fix our broken immigration system. It takes into consideration our country's modern-day national security, economic, and labor needs, as well as our country's age-old tradition of preserving family unity and promoting humanitarian policies.

It would also bring approximately 11 million undocumented individuals now living in the United States out of the shadows and on a path where they could proudly and openly contribute to this great nation.

The first fundamental principle of the bill is that we must control our Nation's borders and protect our national security.

Before a single undocumented person in the United Staes can earn a green card, several important ``triggers'' must be met, showing that the Federal Government has effectively secured the border and is enforcing current immigration laws. These triggers include the following:

No. 1, an unprecedented increase of 20,000 new full-time

Border Patrol agents stationed along the southern border.

No. 2, the full deployment of the comprehensive southern

border security strategy, which requires the Department of

Homeland Security to conduct surveillance of 100 percent of

the southern border region.

No. 3, DHS completion of the southern border fencing

strategy, which includes at least 700 miles of pedestrian

fencing along the southern border.

No. 4, implementation of a mandatory employment

verification system for all employers, known as E-Verify,

which will prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining

employment.

No. 5, implementation of an electronic exit system at air

and sea ports of entry that operates by collecting machine-

readable visa or passport information from passengers of air

and vessel carriers.

These enforcement improvements build upon the Department of Homeland Security's substantial progress in securing and managing our borders.

Over the past several years, DHS has deployed unprecedented amounts of manpower, resources, and technology to secure the Nation's borders, and these efforts have not only led to enhanced border security but have also expedited legitimate trade and travel.

The second fundamental principle included in the bill is the creation of a path to citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are living and working in the United States without proper immigration documentation.

While some have insisted that all 11 million undocumented immigrants should be deported, such a solution is not reasonable.

A majority of these individuals and families have become integrated into the fabric of their communities, and deportation would be a severe outcome. Many work and pay taxes, but they and their families live in the shadows and face the possibility of being picked up and deported, daily.

The State of California has the largest number of undocumented immigrants, estimated to be 2.6 million people or nearly one-fourth of all unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States. These individuals have become an essential part of the California workforce. Many work in hotels, restaurants, agriculture, and the housing and construction industries.

A recent study of immigrants in California that was completed by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress concluded that, ``if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $301.6 billion in economic activity, decrease total employment by 17.4%, and eliminate 3.6 million jobs.'' The study further showed that, ``if unauthorized immigrants in California were legalized, it would add 633,000 jobs to the economy, increase labor income by $26.9 billion, and increase tax revenues by $5.3 billion.''

This bill establishes a process to bring these individuals out of the shadows.

The need to provide a stable, legal, and sustainable workforce through immigration reform is critical in the agricultural sector.

According to government estimates, there are about 1.8 million people who perform hired farm work in the United States. Approximately 1.2 million of these individuals--fully two-thirds of those who help bring pistachios, almonds, wine, and other things we enjoy, to our tables-- are not authorized to work here.

Some may ask, why don't farmers hire Americans to do the work? The answer is, they have tried and tried, but there are not many Americans who are willing to take a job in the fields. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours, often in the hot Sun and high temperatures. That is why the labor shortage persists even in these challenging economic times.

The United Farm Workers initiated the ``Take Our Jobs'' campaign in which they invited citizens and legal residents to apply for jobs on farms across the country, but only seven people accepted jobs and trained for agriculture positions.

A 2012 California Farm Bureau survey found that 71 percent of the tree fruit growers and nearly 80 percent of raisin and berry growers were unable to find adequate labor to prune trees and vines or pick crops.

This problem also impacts year-round industries such as dairy. A 2012 Texas A&M study found that farms using an immigrant workforce produce more than 60 percent of the milk in our country. Without these immigrant dairy employees, economic output would decline by $22 billion and 133,000 workers would lose their jobs.

All over the Nation, growers are closing their farms because they lack a stable, legal workforce. And American farmers who remain are suffering economic losses because of the lack of immigration reform.

And when farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy--in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance.

The reality is that if there are not enough farm workers to harvest the crops in the United States, we will end up relying on foreign countries to provide our food supply. This is not good for our economy or for ensuring that Americans are receiving safe and healthy foods.

Right now, the H-2A visa, or temporary agricultural guest worker visa, is the only program that is available for growers to hire foreign workers. Unfortunately, this program has not worked for the vast majority of agricultural employers.

A 2011 National Council of Agricultural Employers survey found that administrative H-2A delays prevented almost three-fourths of surveyed employers from timely receiving workers, which caused economic loss of nearly $320 million for farms in 2010.

Katie Jackson from Jackson Family Wines in Santa Rosa, CA, wrote me about the challenges she currently faces in navigating the H-2A visa program and identifying a sufficient number of skilled workers. She wrote that because, ``very few of the unemployed in this Nation will opt to work in agriculture, and even fewer have the necessary skills to do so,'' Jackson Family Wines turned to increased automation and use of the H-2A program. However, Ms. Jackson noted that ``the H-2A program is cumbersome and from our perspective merely provides a temporary fix.''

In previous Congresses, Senators Craig, Kennedy, and I repeatedly tried to pass bipartisan legislation to address this, known as AgJOBS, without success.

This year, I collaborated with Senators Rubio, Bennet, and Hatch to negotiate and develop a new proposal that is balanced and fair to address the ag labor crisis. I am very grateful to Senator Schumer and the other Members of the Gang of 8 that they incorporated this proposal into this bill; it is now subtitle B of Title II, the ``Agricultural Worker Program.''

All of the elements of this program were negotiated between farm worker representatives and a large coalition of grower organizations. These negotiated provisions protect both farmers who are forced to rely on foreign farm labor and the farm workers by allowing the current undocumented farm workers to continue to work in agriculture to earn a blue card and eventually a green card.

Under the bill, agricultural workers who can document U.S. agricultural employment for a minimum of 100 work days or 575 hours in the 2 years prior to date of enactment are eligible to adjust to blue card status. Blue card applicants must not have a felony or violent misdemeanor conviction and must pay a $100 fine for being in the United States without immigration status.

Agricultural workers are eligible for a green card when they pay all taxes, have no felony or violent misdemeanor convictions, and pay another fine--of $400. The worker must also document that they performed at least 5 years of agricultural employment for at least 100 work days per year during the 8-year period beginning on the date of enactment or performed at least 3 years of agricultural employment for at least 150 work days per year during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment.

To replace the problematic H-2A program, the bill will also address the long-term workforce needs of farmers going forward, including dairies and other year-round ag industries, by creating a streamlined system to bring in temporary guest workers through a new agricultural visa program called the W-Visa program.

This two-part new farm worker visa program provides a temporary worker two options, which are at-will employment or contract-based employment.

No. 1 at-will employees have the freedom to move from employer to employer without any contractual commitment.

No. 2 contract employees must commit to work for an employer for a fixed period of time, which can provide increased stability for both employees and employers. After fulfilling this commitment, they are then free to work for other U.S. agricultural employers.

The bill includes specific negotiated wage rates that replace the ``adverse effect wage rate'' standard that exists under the current H- 2A program, which has proven to be very controversial, and which many farmers say is one of the reasons that the H-2A program is unworkable.

The number of agricultural guest workers who can enter the country in any given year is subject to a carefully negotiated cap to reflect anticipated labor market demands.

For the first 5 years, the visa program is capped at 112,333 per year. With a 3-year visa, this would result in 336,999 temporary workers who can be in the country at one time.

To ensure that a given year's visa allocation is not used up by regions of the country that harvest earlier than others, the bill requires that the visas be evenly distributed on a quarterly basis in the first year and that the USDA Secretary can modify the timing of the disbursement of visas based on prior usage patterns thereafter. Any unused visas that remain at the end of a quarter can be rolled over to the next quarter but not to the next year.

The cap may be increased if there are demonstrated labor shortages or reduced in response to a high unemployment rate of agricultural workers. After 6 years, the number of applications for guest worker visas and the number of blue card applications approved will also be considered when determining the annual caps.

This new, improved visa program will help American agriculture continue to be a driving force in our Nation's economy.

For those who are currently unauthorized to be in this country, Democrats and Republicans together created a new registered provisional immigrant--or RPI--program to provide such immigrants with lawful immigration status.

RPIs would be authorized to work in the United States and to travel abroad. Only if they meet stringent criteria may they renew their RPI status for another 6 years and ultimately adjust from RPI status to that of a lawful permanent resident--or green card holder.

Let me be clear, this is not amnesty. Amnesty is automatically giving those who broke the law a clean slate, no questions asked. This bill does not do that. Instead, the bill imposes rigorous requirements in order for each individual to attain legal status, apply for a green card, and eventually become a citizen.

The time has come for those who are already here, doing jobs across the

spectrum--such as caring for our aging population, working in restaurants and hotels, and creating successful small businesses. It is realistic for us to secure a sufficient legal workforce, while importantly protecting our U.S. workers, to meet the labor needs of this country.

This bill would also finally pave the way for DREAMers who were brought to the United States by their parents and grew up here; they consider the United States their home and want to give back.

Approximately 65,000 DREAMers graduate from our high schools each year. They are hard-working and are dedicated to their education or to serving in the Nation's military. Some are valedictorians and honor roll students; some are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States.

Through no fault of their own, these young individuals lack the immigration status they need to realize their full potential. This bill will provide an opportunity for these students to fulfill the American dream and it is only prudent for us to give them that chance.

While still prioritizing the American workers who are seeking jobs by establishing a strict screening requirements, this bill aims to meet the needs of businesses so that our economy can succeed not only in the fields but in medical, technological, and research labs across the country.

This bill reforms the H-1B visa program for high-skilled workers by doubling and potentially tripling it depending on the country's labor needs. Ensuring that this country stays ahead of the curve in technology, it facilitates advances in science, technology, math, and engineering by stapling a green card to certain STEM graduates' passports. It creates a W visa program for low-skilled workers and encourages ideas through entrepreneurship, enabling the creation of the likes of the next eBay, Google, PayPal, and Yahoo, all which were founded by immigrants.

I want to commend the members of the Gang of Eight Senators--Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake,--for providing a foundation that strikes the right balance and reflects the best thinking on how to accommodate all the various concerns and interests.

I also want to recognize those who paved the path forward for them, including former Senators Kennedy, Specter, Salazar, Kyl, and Martinez. Their hard work in tackling this difficult issue has finally brought us to this crucial stage.

This is not a perfect bill, but it is a necessary bill. If we do not seize this opportunity, I fear that the chance of comprehensive reform will be gone for another generation--something I believe would be a terrible mistake for our country.

It realistically and pragmatically updates our current immigration system in a way that enhances our national security, ensures our labor needs are met in a fair way that does not compromise U.S. workers, facilitates timely family unification, and is humane. I hope you will join me in passing this bill in the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Respect for Marriage Act.

Today is an historic day. The Supreme Court issued two decisions that are major victories for the cause of equality for same-sex couples in this nation.

In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies the federal benefits and obligations of marriage to legally married same-sex couples. I was one of 14 members of this body to vote against DOMA in 1996, and I am pleased a major part of the law has been declared unconstitutional.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court left in place a trial court injunction finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional--which will bring marriage equality back to my home State of California.

I am thrilled by these decisions, which will mean a great deal for same-sex couples in California and across the Nation.

Our work, however, is not done. It remains critical that Congress act to fully repeal DOMA. That is what the Respect for Marriage Act will do.

This legislation is cosponsored by 40 members of the Senate--Senators Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coons, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Warren, Whitehouse, and Wyden.

I want to thank them for their strong support of this legislation. I would also like to thank Representative Jerry Nadler for his staunch leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.

Today, 12 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry.

Because of today's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which left, in effect, a trial court order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, my home State of California will soon once again recognize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. I am thrilled about that result.

According to the 2010 Census, there are over 131,000 same-sex married couples in this Nation--a number that is sure to grow.

I think most Americans have come to recognize that same-sex couples live their lives like other married couples. They raise children together. They care for each other in good times and in bad. They take the same vows and make the same commitments as straight couples.

Simply put, they are families. Like other families, they reap life's joys and bear the brunt of life's hardships together.

Until the Supreme Court's decision today in United States v. Windsor, DOMA turned these families into second-class families.

Under over 1,100 Federal laws, DOMA prohibited the Federal Government from recognizing the equal dignity and commitment of legally married same-sex couples.

These couples were barred from filing joint tax returns, forced to pay much higher taxes on employer-provided health benefits, and stripped of protections for married couples from the estate tax.

They could not receive Social Security survivor benefits, which protect a surviving spouse from becoming destitute when the other spouse passes away.

Critical protections and benefits for service members and veterans were also denied. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, well over 100 statutory protections granted by Congress to servicemembers turn on marital status.

Today's decision in United States v. Windsor is a major victory for equality. It says that Section 3 of DOMA--which denies Federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples--is unconstitutional because it is a denial of equal protection.

The Windsor case had to do with two women--Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer--who met in 1963 and were together for over 40 years. They married in 2007. Yet when Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA. Had her spouse been a man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes.

Even after the Court decision, which hinged on a bare 5-4 majority, the Respect for Marriage Act remains critically important legislation, for several reasons.

First, DOMA is a discriminatory law--all of it should be fully stricken from the books. It was wrong when it was passed, and it should be repealed.

Second, even after the Windsor decision, there will remain inconsistencies in how certain Federal programs are administered.

For example, the Social Security Act provides Survivors' Benefits-- which are critical for families after a spouse dies--based on the law of the state where the deceased spouse was domiciled at the time of death.

So, a married couple could live together for 40 years, contribute equally to the system, and then be stripped of what they have earned-- just because they moved to another state for medical reasons before one spouse passed. That's just not right.

Veterans benefits are based on the law of the state where the parties resided at the time of the marriage, or when the right to benefits accrued.

So, different veterans benefits might be granted or denied, depending on where a couple lived at different times, without any rhyme or reason. That is not fair to former servicemembers who may have moved around as part of their military service.

This bill is simple. It would strike all of DOMA, a discriminatory law, from the U.S. Code.

It would provide a clear rule that the Federal Government would recognize a marriage if that marriage is valid in the State where it was entered into.

This rule will provide clarity and predictability for legally married same-sex couples, and it will be easy to administer for federal agencies tasked with ending DOMA in the programs they administer.

The bill would not require any state to issue a marriage license it does not wish to issue, nor would it require any religious institution to perform any marriage.

In 2011, after I first introduced this bill, I gave a press conference about it at the National Press Club. I said I was not faint- hearted about this, and that I was in it for the long march.

Today, I remain committed to that cause and determined to see it through. Our work is not finished until DOMA is fully off the books, which is what this bill will do.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Respect for Marriage Act.

Today is an historic day. The Supreme Court issued two decisions that are major victories for the cause of equality for same-sex couples in this nation.

In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies the federal benefits and obligations of marriage to legally married same-sex couples. I was one of 14 members of this body to vote against DOMA in 1996, and I am pleased a major part of the law has been declared unconstitutional.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court left in place a trial court injunction finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional--which will bring marriage equality back to my home State of California.

I am thrilled by these decisions, which will mean a great deal for same-sex couples in California and across the Nation.

Our work, however, is not done. It remains critical that Congress act to fully repeal DOMA. That is what the Respect for Marriage Act will do.

This legislation is cosponsored by 40 members of the Senate--Senators Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coons, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Warren, Whitehouse, and Wyden.

I want to thank them for their strong support of this legislation. I would also like to thank Representative Jerry Nadler for his staunch leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.

Today, 12 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry.

Because of today's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which left, in effect, a trial court order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, my home State of California will soon once again recognize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. I am thrilled about that result.

According to the 2010 Census, there are over 131,000 same-sex married couples in this Nation--a number that is sure to grow.

I think most Americans have come to recognize that same-sex couples live their lives like other married couples. They raise children together. They care for each other in good times and in bad. They take the same vows and make the same commitments as straight couples.

Simply put, they are families. Like other families, they reap life's joys and bear the brunt of life's hardships together.

Until the Supreme Court's decision today in United States v. Windsor, DOMA turned these families into second-class families.

Under over 1,100 Federal laws, DOMA prohibited the Federal Government from recognizing the equal dignity and commitment of legally married same-sex couples.

These couples were barred from filing joint tax returns, forced to pay much higher taxes on employer-provided health benefits, and stripped of protections for married couples from the estate tax.

They could not receive Social Security survivor benefits, which protect a surviving spouse from becoming destitute when the other spouse passes away.

Critical protections and benefits for service members and veterans were also denied. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, well over 100 statutory protections granted by Congress to servicemembers turn on marital status.

Today's decision in United States v. Windsor is a major victory for equality. It says that Section 3 of DOMA--which denies Federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples--is unconstitutional because it is a denial of equal protection.

The Windsor case had to do with two women--Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer--who met in 1963 and were together for over 40 years. They married in 2007. Yet when Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA. Had her spouse been a man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes.

Even after the Court decision, which hinged on a bare 5-4 majority, the Respect for Marriage Act remains critically important legislation, for several reasons.

First, DOMA is a discriminatory law--all of it should be fully stricken from the books. It was wrong when it was passed, and it should be repealed.

Second, even after the Windsor decision, there will remain inconsistencies in how certain Federal programs are administered.

For example, the Social Security Act provides Survivors' Benefits-- which are critical for families after a spouse dies--based on the law of the state where the deceased spouse was domiciled at the time of death.

So, a married couple could live together for 40 years, contribute equally to the system, and then be stripped of what they have earned-- just because they moved to another state for medical reasons before one spouse passed. That's just not right.

Veterans benefits are based on the law of the state where the parties resided at the time of the marriage, or when the right to benefits accrued.

So, different veterans benefits might be granted or denied, depending on where a couple lived at different times, without any rhyme or reason. That is not fair to former servicemembers who may have moved around as part of their military service.

This bill is simple. It would strike all of DOMA, a discriminatory law, from the U.S. Code.

It would provide a clear rule that the Federal Government would recognize a marriage if that marriage is valid in the State where it was entered into.

This rule will provide clarity and predictability for legally married same-sex couples, and it will be easy to administer for federal agencies tasked with ending DOMA in the programs they administer.

The bill would not require any state to issue a marriage license it does not wish to issue, nor would it require any religious institution to perform any marriage.

In 2011, after I first introduced this bill, I gave a press conference about it at the National Press Club. I said I was not faint- hearted about this, and that I was in it for the long march.

Today, I remain committed to that cause and determined to see it through. Our work is not finished until DOMA is fully off the books, which is what this bill will do.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.

This legislation will make it easier for communities across the Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to cost-effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of growth on the environment and endangered species.

This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the

habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''.

Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going construction and development activity.

In California, the Western Riverside County multiple-species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000 acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the county's economy.

Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained.

In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed.

Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing HCP's billions of dollars.

Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted--a very rare occurrence.

These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer: protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.

A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last month. But where the WRDA provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public infrastructure.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars.

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 Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.

This legislation will make it easier for communities across the Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to cost-effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of growth on the environment and endangered species.

This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the

habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''.

Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going construction and development activity.

In California, the Western Riverside County multiple-species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000 acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the county's economy.

Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained.

In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed.

Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing HCP's billions of dollars.

Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted--a very rare occurrence.

These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer: protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.

A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last month. But where the WRDA provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public infrastructure.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend a critical textile and apparel trade program with Nicaragua, currently set to expire at the end of 2014 through the end of 2024.

This is a unique program which benefits not only Nicaraguan apparel factories and U.S. apparel companies and retailers, but U.S. fabric and yarn mills as well.

Let me explain.

In an effort to promote trade between the United States and Nicaragua, the 2006 Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, allows Nicaragua to export to the United States a limited amount of apparel products duty free regardless of the source of the yarn or fabric.

Specifically, this Tariff Preference Level, TPL, allows Nicaragua to export 100 million square meter equivalents, SMEs, of apparel made with fabric from non-CAFTA countries as long as the apparel is assembled in Nicaragua.

In order to ensure that U.S. fabric producers could also take advantage of this program, it contains a special rule for trousers.

It requires Nicaragua to purchase one square meter of U.S. fabric for every one square meter of non-CAFTA woven trouser fabric.

That is, under this ``one for one'' rule, for each export of woven trousers made from non-CAFTA fabric, Nicaragua agreed to export to the U.S. an equal amount of woven trousers made of U.S. fabric, up to a certain level 50 million square meter equivalents.

This ``one for one'' feature has been especially successful, resulting in an increase in U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua and an increase in apparel production jobs in Central America.

In fact, since 2006, when the program went into effect, U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua have nearly doubled from $57.3 million to $110.2 million.

Nicaragua is now the fastest growing market for U.S. fabric exports to the CAFTA region.

Nicaragua has also greatly benefited from this program.

I would remind my colleagues that Nicaragua, with a GDP per capita of $3,300, is the poorest country in Central America and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

Approximately 42.5 percent of Nicaragua's population lives below the poverty line.

It is vital that Nicaragua develop and grow new export opportunities to help lift its people out of poverty. And that is what this program has done.

Since 2006, total apparel exports from Nicaragua to the U.S. have doubled. The program now accounts for 25 percent of those exports.

Between 2005 and 2013, jobs in the apparel sector in Nicaragua have grown

by 23 percent. That is, 13,236 new jobs have been created since CAFTA went into effect.

With a program that has proven to be so successful and mutually beneficial, it is appropriate for Congress to extend it and ensure that these benefits continue.

Some of my colleagues may wonder why I am introducing legislation now to extend a textile and apparel trade program that will not expire until the end of 2014.

The simple answer is that an early renewal is critical for business planning purposes.

U.S. companies that have taken advantage of this program are making decisions now about their long-term investments and where they will source apparel products.

Extending this program several months before its expiration date will help give U.S. companies the necessary confidence to continue to invest in Nicaragua and take advantage of its benefits.

If we wait until the last minute to extend the program, the ties that have been developed between U.S. and Nicaraguan companies and the benefits accrued will be put at risk.

Simply put, U.S. companies will not make the commitments to Nicaragua if there is a chance the textile and apparel trade program will lapse.

They will look elsewhere for new business opportunities to avoid what would in essence be a new trade barrier to U.S. textile exports and U.S. apparel companies in Nicaragua.

And as U.S. apparel orders from Nicaragua decline, U.S. textile exports to Nicaragua will also decline. Jobs will be lost.

U.S. companies are looking for assurances that the U.S. is committed to this program after 2014 and that is why this legislation is needed now.

It is supported by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the United States Association of Importers of Textile and Apparel.

It is a win-win trade program promoting jobs and economic growth in both countries.

Nicaragua will be able to continue to develop a vital export industry and U.S. apparel companies, retailers, and textile manufacturers will continue to access a growing, thriving market in Central America.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend a critical textile and apparel trade program with Nicaragua, currently set to expire at the end of 2014 through the end of 2024.

This is a unique program which benefits not only Nicaraguan apparel factories and U.S. apparel companies and retailers, but U.S. fabric and yarn mills as well.

Let me explain.

In an effort to promote trade between the United States and Nicaragua, the 2006 Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, allows Nicaragua to export to the United States a limited amount of apparel products duty free regardless of the source of the yarn or fabric.

Specifically, this Tariff Preference Level, TPL, allows Nicaragua to export 100 million square meter equivalents, SMEs, of apparel made with fabric from non-CAFTA countries as long as the apparel is assembled in Nicaragua.

In order to ensure that U.S. fabric producers could also take advantage of this program, it contains a special rule for trousers.

It requires Nicaragua to purchase one square meter of U.S. fabric for every one square meter of non-CAFTA woven trouser fabric.

That is, under this ``one for one'' rule, for each export of woven trousers made from non-CAFTA fabric, Nicaragua agreed to export to the U.S. an equal amount of woven trousers made of U.S. fabric, up to a certain level 50 million square meter equivalents.

This ``one for one'' feature has been especially successful, resulting in an increase in U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua and an increase in apparel production jobs in Central America.

In fact, since 2006, when the program went into effect, U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua have nearly doubled from $57.3 million to $110.2 million.

Nicaragua is now the fastest growing market for U.S. fabric exports to the CAFTA region.

Nicaragua has also greatly benefited from this program.

I would remind my colleagues that Nicaragua, with a GDP per capita of $3,300, is the poorest country in Central America and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

Approximately 42.5 percent of Nicaragua's population lives below the poverty line.

It is vital that Nicaragua develop and grow new export opportunities to help lift its people out of poverty. And that is what this program has done.

Since 2006, total apparel exports from Nicaragua to the U.S. have doubled. The program now accounts for 25 percent of those exports.

Between 2005 and 2013, jobs in the apparel sector in Nicaragua have grown

by 23 percent. That is, 13,236 new jobs have been created since CAFTA went into effect.

With a program that has proven to be so successful and mutually beneficial, it is appropriate for Congress to extend it and ensure that these benefits continue.

Some of my colleagues may wonder why I am introducing legislation now to extend a textile and apparel trade program that will not expire until the end of 2014.

The simple answer is that an early renewal is critical for business planning purposes.

U.S. companies that have taken advantage of this program are making decisions now about their long-term investments and where they will source apparel products.

Extending this program several months before its expiration date will help give U.S. companies the necessary confidence to continue to invest in Nicaragua and take advantage of its benefits.

If we wait until the last minute to extend the program, the ties that have been developed between U.S. and Nicaraguan companies and the benefits accrued will be put at risk.

Simply put, U.S. companies will not make the commitments to Nicaragua if there is a chance the textile and apparel trade program will lapse.

They will look elsewhere for new business opportunities to avoid what would in essence be a new trade barrier to U.S. textile exports and U.S. apparel companies in Nicaragua.

And as U.S. apparel orders from Nicaragua decline, U.S. textile exports to Nicaragua will also decline. Jobs will be lost.

U.S. companies are looking for assurances that the U.S. is committed to this program after 2014 and that is why this legislation is needed now.

It is supported by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the United States Association of Importers of Textile and Apparel.

It is a win-win trade program promoting jobs and economic growth in both countries.

Nicaragua will be able to continue to develop a vital export industry and U.S. apparel companies, retailers, and textile manufacturers will continue to access a growing, thriving market in Central America.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 991, filed by my colleague, the junior Senator from South Dakota.

This amendment would eliminate $2 billion from SNAP by limiting the funds available for cost-effective nutrition education programs.

While I appreciate and share my colleague's deep commitment to deficit reduction, this amendment would do so at the expense of those who can least afford it.

It is a shortsighted amendment pennywise and pound foolish.

A $2 billion cut to this program would chip away at vital programs that combat obesity, a growing epidemic that weighs on our health care system and our economy. Estimates of the medical cost of adult obesity in the United States range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year, according to the Trust for America's Health.

Cutting this program may save money in the short term, but it would cripple ongoing efforts to deliver innovative and effective nutrition education to the most vulnerable populations in our country.

And these education programs are working, Madam President.

According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, USDA's SNAP nutrition education programs contributed to a 17 percent increase in the number of California adults who ate at least five servings of fruits and vegetables each day.

The study showed that the greatest improvements in daily fruit and vegetable consumption were seen in populations with the greatest need.

There was a 91 percent increase among the poorest segment of the population, those with less than $15,000 in annual income, who consumed five or more serving of fruits and vegetables per day; a 77 percent improvement in the African American population, and a 43 percent improvement in the Latino population.

The staggering cost of obesity will continue to increase until we take significant action to improve our health and diet.

That's not to say that there's no room for reform; there certainly is.

That is why Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act 3 years ago, a bill that made significant reforms to SNAP nutrition education programs.

Most notably, the law changed how the program is funded to make it more equitable. The formula now reflects the actual number of SNAP beneficiaries in each State.

Some would have us believe that the amendment, which mandates an across-the-board $5 cap per recipient, is fiscally responsible. I don't think that is the case. I believe this is simply an attempt to redistribute SNAP funding to States that have shown no interest in reducing obesity among SNAP beneficiaries.

Under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, funding for the SNAP Education Program is allotted based on two factors: a State's historical contributions to healthy eating and lifestyle programs, and the number of SNAP participants in the State.

The amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota undoes that formula, instead allocating funds solely on a per-recipient basis.

The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act formula was the product of a compromise.

The old formula, which allowed the Federal Government to match all State contributions to programs that encourage healthy eating and lifestyles for SNAP recipients, was not affordable.

By eliminating the unlimited match provision and replacing it with a block grant, the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act was able to save taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years.

In exchange for this reduction, a new formula was created. Under the new provision, States that committed hundreds of millions of their own dollars to reduce obesity, like California and Michigan, received marginally higher obesity education funding from USDA.

And States that had not dedicated their own resources to combating obesity received a relatively smaller share of the funding.

Allowing the changes from 2010, which are just now being implemented, to take effect is the best way to effectively reform this program.

This amendment would devastate a program that helps SNAP-eligible children and families learn to stretch their food budgets, reduce hunger, make improvements to their diets and reduce obesity.

I urge my colleagues to let USDA implement the thoughtful comprehensive reforms from 2010.

Mr. President, scientific studies continue to show cause for concern about the chemical Bisphenol-A, BPA, especially the effects on babies and young children. Endocrine disrupting chemicals alter the function of the body's hormonal system. BPA is a synthetic estrogen, which means that it mimics this hormone when in the body. While studies continue to examine the exact effects this endocrine disrupting chemical has on humans, consumers deserve more information. They have the right to know if it is in the food products they purchase for their families.

The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act requires that food packaging that uses BPA include a clear label informing consumers. The label would read, ``This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine- disrupting chemical.'' This basic message would allow individuals to make informed decisions about the products they purchase.

BPA is most commonly found in food products, such as the lining of cans. Parents are busy enough caring for their children and juggling what feels like a hundred things at the same time. Having factual information about whether the food they are buying at the grocery store contains BPA, a potentially harmful chemical, shouldn't be one more thing they have to go to great lengths to figure out.

This legislation also directs the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to do a safety assessment of food containers containing BPA to determine if there is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from long-term low dose exposure to BPA as well as high dose exposure.

This safety standard would also be used to evaluate proposed uses of alternatives to BPA. There is no use in replacing BPA in products if what we are replacing it with is just as bad or worse for human health.

The President's Cancer Panel focused on reducing the environmental cancer risk in its 2008- 2009 Annual Report. BPA is just one of many chemicals

that pose a potential environmental cancer risk, with links to various cancers and also potentially affecting how well cancer treatments work. This panel, appointed by former President George W. Bush, decided that even though studies are ongoing, they had enough information to state that ``the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.''

I agree with this finding and strongly believe that as scientific studies continue to seek definitive answers to the role of chemical exposure in adversely affecting human health, the very least that consumers deserve is the right to know what chemicals, such as BPA, are in the products they are purchasing. The panel specifically mentions concern that even though studies continue to link BPA with a variety of diseases, it still remains in products.

I am particularly concerned about the negative health effects to children who are exposed to chemicals both while they are developing in the womb and in the first few years of their lives. Children are particularly susceptible to toxins while their bodies are developing at such a rapid pace. A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Berkley, stated that fetuses and pregnant women may be particularly susceptible to BPA exposure. The study found that exposure to BPA may have an effect on thyroid function, and suggests continued studies to confirm these findings.

An article published in Health Affairs in 2011 estimated that the annual cost of diseases that can be attributed to negative environmental exposures was more than $76 billion per year in 2008. The incidence of endocrine system-related diseases continues to rise, and animal studies have shown adverse health effects in connection with exposure to BPA.

A recent study by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health examined a link between BPA exposure and an increased risk for asthma in young children. They found that there was an elevated risk associated with BPA exposure and more research is needed to determine specific links.

BPA is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products and the most common exposure is through the lining of food packaging- like cans of green beans and ready-made soups. As with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without knowing if it is safe or not.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act to stand up for the right of consumers to make informed choices about the food products they buy for their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.