[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3164-S3188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
  S. 607. A bill to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 
1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding 
additional recreational uses of National Forest System land that are 
subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski 
areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to 
provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional 
recreational uses of those areas.
  I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage 
Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can 
contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest 
lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities 
for such activities.
  My interest in the subject was heightened last year when 
representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my 
attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 
1986. This law speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' and does not 
reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now 
used. They described this problem as the absence of clear authority for 
the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, 
seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities 
in support of those activities.
  To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under 
Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment 
whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary 
Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those 
matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with 
you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear 
authority regarding such activities and facilities.
  I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest 
Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from 
the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in 
developing the bill that I introduced in the U.S. House of 
Representatives last year.
  Today, I am introducing this bill in the Senate.
  The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on 
the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other 
official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not 
only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an 
interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in 
the bill the term ``developed

[[Page S3165]]

recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been 
improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed 
campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as 
well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based 
recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the 
Forest Service manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related 
Resource Management.
  It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 
National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any 
other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any 
permits issued under any of those laws.
  Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority 
with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but 
they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for 
compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In 
fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other 
provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it 
provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest 
Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future 
holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for 
additional developed recreational activities, and to place associated 
facilities, on the lands covered by that permit if the specified 
requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would 
appropriate for that to occur.
  And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use 
of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or 
in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest 
Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski 
areas.
  This is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable 
regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests 
and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for 
seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those 
lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Outline of the Bill

       Section 1 sets forth findings regarding the basis for the 
     legislation, and states its purpose. The findings note that 
     it is in the national interest to provide, and encourage 
     Americans to take advantage of, opportunities to engage in 
     outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their 
     health and well-being; that National Forests, including those 
     areas used for skiing, can provide such opportunities during 
     all four seasons; that increased use of ski areas for that 
     purpose can reduce impacts on other National Forest lands; 
     and that it is in the national interest to revise the 
     National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. The purpose is to amend 
     that 1986 law so as to reflect that other snowsports, in 
     addition to nordic and alpine skiing, occur at ski areas and 
     to clarify the Forest Service's authority to permit 
     additional appropriate seasonal or year-round recreational 
     uses of lands subject to permits under that law.
       Section 2 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit 
     Act of 1986 in three ways: (1) by replacing current language 
     that refers only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' with broader 
     terminology to reflect that additional ski areas are also 
     used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding.
       (2) by providing specific authority for the Forest Service 
     to authorize the holder of a ski area permit under the 1986 
     law to provide additional recreational opportunities (and to 
     have associated facilities) on lands covered by that permit. 
     This authority is limited to activities and facilities that 
     the Forest Service determines appropriate, that encourage 
     outdoor recreation, and that harmonize to the natural 
     environment to the extent practicable. The bill makes clear 
     that the activities and facilities will be subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Forest Service determines 
     appropriate. It also specifies that no activity or facility 
     can be authorized if the agency determines that authorization 
     would result in the primary recreational purpose of lands 
     covered by a permit under the 1986 law would not be skiing or 
     other snowsports.
       (3) Finally, the bill would delete from the 1986 law 
     obsolete language related to a deadline for conversion of 
     previously-issued ski-area permits to permits under the 1986 
     law, while retaining the requirement that regulations be 
     promulgated to implement that law--a requirement that will 
     apply to the law as it would be amended by the bill.
       Section 3 specifies that the bill will not affect any 
     authority the Forest Service now has under laws other than 
     the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, including 
     authority with respect to recreational activities or 
     facilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TESTER:
  S. 608. A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 
of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain 
vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Common Sense 
in Consumer Product Safety Act of 2009 on behalf of the folks across 
America who are outdoor enthusiasts and budding sportsman and women. 
This bill will bring a common sense approach to restrictions we place 
upon access to children's products.
  Last fall, in response to the high lead paint content found in a 
number of toys and products intended for children, the Congress passed 
legislation to limit children's access to these dangerous products. 
Many of these products were imports from China and other places where 
consumer protection is weak or non-existent. I supported this 
legislation, as did 78 of my colleagues.
  Today, however, we have learned that this bill has had some 
unintended consequences. Any product sold that is intended to be used 
by children up to the age of 12 must be tested and certified to not 
contain more than the allowable level of lead.
  While the goal is admirable, it is important to inject a little 
common sense into the process. I want our kids and grandkids to be safe 
and protected from harmful toys, but we all know that most kids who are 
past the teething stage do not chew on their toys. It is important to 
enact responsible safety requirements while at the same time 
recognizing that overzealous restrictions can interfere with a way of 
life enjoyed by not just Montanans, but outdoor enthusiasts across 
America.
  As the Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am 
proud to stand up for Montana's outdoor heritage at every chance. 
Unfortunately, the new law goes too far and limits younger Montanans' 
opportunities to be a part of that heritage.
  My bill will protect small businesses and allow families better, 
safer access to the outdoors.
  The current law extends to all products intended for the use of 
children through the age of 12. This includes ATVs, dirt bikes and 
other vehicles built specifically for the use of older kids and adults; 
the way the vehicles are built, parts that might include lead are not 
totally sealed away and therefore they do not pass the standard of 
inaccessibility required by law. As a result of this requirement, a 
number of ATV sales and retail establishments have halted the sale of 
all ATVs for kids. In an abundance of caution, they have also refused 
to repair any equipment intended for kids use.
  I have heard from many Montanans--consumers and retail sales people 
alike--expressing their concern about the impact of the legislation 
upon outdoor motor sports. Therefore today, I am introducing this bill 
to designate an exception for vehicles intended to be used by children 
between the ages of 7 and 12.
  In addition to manufacturers and merchants, thrift stores and other 
retail establishments are also implicated because of the wide-reaching 
scope of the legislation. It is possible that even holding a yard sale 
can lead folks astray from the new law. Therefore, my bill also removes 
liability for lead paint content in any product that is repaired or is 
resold by thrift stores, flea markets or at yard sales. The liability 
in place at the time of primary sale of these products is sufficient 
and it could cripple the profitability of the secondary merchants if 
they were to be liable for testing the products they resell or repair.
  In this tough economy, second-hand resellers simply can not afford 
the third-party testing requirement put in place by last fall's bill. 
At the same time, more and more of Montana's families are finding their 
budgets tighten and are relying upon thrift and resale stores for toys, 
children's clothing and other household goods. I want to make sure that 
laws intended to keep our kids safe end up doing more harm than good.

[[Page S3166]]

  I think this a very important bill, bringing a dose of common sense 
to the very important goal of protecting our kids from lead paint and 
other substances that will harm their health. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 608

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense in Consumer 
     Product Safety Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF SECONDARY SALES, REPAIR SERVICES, AND 
                   CERTAIN VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Exclusion of Secondary Sales and Repair Services.--
     Subsection (a) of section 101 of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Construction.--
       ``(A) Secondary sales.--The sale of a children's product 
     described in paragraph (1) after the first retail sale of 
     that product shall not be considered an introduction or 
     delivery for introduction into interstate commerce under 
     section 4(a) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1263(a)) of such product.
       ``(B) Repair services.--The repair of a children's product 
     described in paragraph (1) shall not be considered an 
     introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
     commerce under such section 4(a) of such product.''.
       (b) Exclusion of Certain Vehicles.--Subsection (b) of such 
     section 101(b) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Certain vehicles.--A vehicle designed or intended 
     primarily for children 7 years of age or older shall not be 
     considered a children's product for purposes of the 
     prohibition in subsection (a). In determining whether a 
     vehicle is primarily intended for a child 7 years of age or 
     older, the factors specified in section 3(a)(2) of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(2)) shall be 
     considered except that such section shall be applied by 
     substituting `7 years of age or older' for `12 years of age 
     or younger' each place that term appears.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 610. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for 
patent reform; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 610

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Patent 
     Reform Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Right of the first inventor to file.
Sec. 3. Inventor's oath or declaration.
Sec. 4. Damages.
Sec. 5. Post-grant review proceedings.
Sec. 6. Definition; patent trial and appeal board.
Sec. 7. Submissions by third parties and other quality enhancements.
Sec. 8. Venue.
Sec. 9. Patent and trademark office regulatory authority.
Sec. 10. Applicant quality submissions.
Sec. 11. Inequitable conduct.
Sec. 12. Conversion of deadlines.
Sec. 13. Check imaging patents.
Sec. 14. Patent and trademark office funding.
Sec. 15. Technical amendments.
Sec. 16. Effective date; rule of construction.

     SEC. 2. RIGHT OF THE FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 100 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The term `inventor' means the individual or, if a 
     joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or 
     discovered the subject matter of the invention.
       ``(g) The terms `joint inventor' and `coinventor' mean any 
     1 of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject 
     matter of a joint invention.
       ``(h) The `effective filing date of a claimed invention' 
     is--
       ``(1) the filing date of the patent or the application for 
     patent containing the claim to the invention; or
       ``(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled 
     to a right of priority of any other application under section 
     119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing 
     date in the United States under section 120, 121, or 365(c), 
     the filing date of the earliest such application in which the 
     claimed invention is disclosed in the manner provided by the 
     first paragraph of section 112.
       ``(i) The term `claimed invention' means the subject matter 
     defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a 
     patent.''.
       (b) Conditions for Patentability.--
       (1) In general.--Section 102 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty

       ``(a) Novelty; Prior Art.--A patent for a claimed invention 
     may not be obtained if--
       ``(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a 
     printed publication, or otherwise made available to the 
     public (other than through testing undertaken to reduce the 
     invention to practice)--
       ``(A) more than 1 year before the effective filing date of 
     the claimed invention; or
       ``(B) 1 year or less before the effective filing date of 
     the claimed invention, other than through disclosures made by 
     the inventor or a joint inventor or by others who obtained 
     the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the 
     inventor or a joint inventor; or
       ``(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent 
     issued under section 151, or in an application for patent 
     published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which 
     the patent or application, as the case may be, names another 
     inventor and was effectively filed before the effective 
     filing date of the claimed invention.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Prior inventor disclosure exception.--Subject matter 
     that would otherwise qualify as prior art based upon a 
     disclosure under subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall 
     not be prior art to a claimed invention under that 
     subparagraph if the subject matter had, before such 
     disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a 
     joint inventor or others who obtained the subject matter 
     disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint 
     inventor.
       ``(2) Derivation, prior disclosure, and common assignment 
     exceptions.--Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as 
     prior art only under subsection (a)(2), after taking into 
     account the exception under paragraph (1), shall not be prior 
     art to a claimed invention if--
       ``(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or 
     indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
       ``(B) the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the 
     inventor or a joint inventor or others who obtained the 
     subject matter disclosed, directly or indirectly, from the 
     inventor or a joint inventor before the effective filing date 
     of the application or patent set forth under subsection 
     (a)(2); or
       ``(C) the subject matter and the claimed invention, not 
     later than the effective filing date of the claimed 
     invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an 
     obligation of assignment to the same person.
       ``(3) Joint research agreement exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject matter and a claimed invention 
     shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or 
     subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in 
     applying the provisions of paragraph (2) if--
       ``(i) the subject matter and the claimed invention were 
     made by or on behalf of 1 or more parties to a joint research 
     agreement that was in effect on or before the effective 
     filing date of the claimed invention;
       ``(ii) the claimed invention was made as a result of 
     activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research 
     agreement; and
       ``(iii) the application for patent for the claimed 
     invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of 
     the parties to the joint research agreement.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `joint 
     research agreement' means a written contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement entered into by 2 or more persons or 
     entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, 
     or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
       ``(4) Patents and published applications effectively 
     filed.--A patent or application for patent is effectively 
     filed under subsection (a)(2) with respect to any subject 
     matter described in the patent or application--
       ``(A) as of the filing date of the patent or the 
     application for patent; or
       ``(B) if the patent or application for patent is entitled 
     to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 
     365(b) or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date 
     under section 120, 121, or 365(c), based upon 1 or more prior 
     filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the 
     earliest such application that describes the subject 
     matter.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section 102 
     in the table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``102. Conditions for patentability; novelty.''.
       (c) Conditions for Patentability; Nonobvious Subject 
     Matter.--Section 103 of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 103. Conditions for patentability; nonobvious subject 
       matter

       ``A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 
     though the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as 
     set forth in section 102, if the differences between the 
     claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed 
     invention as a whole would

[[Page S3167]]

     have been obvious before the effective filing date of the 
     claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the 
     art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability 
     shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was 
     made.''.
       (d) Repeal of Requirements for Inventions Made Abroad.--
     Section 104 of title 35, United States Code, and the item 
     relating to that section in the table of sections for chapter 
     10 of title 35, United States Code, are repealed.
       (e) Repeal of Statutory Invention Registration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 157 of title 35, United States 
     Code, and the item relating to that section in the table of 
     sections for chapter 14 of title 35, United States Code, are 
     repealed.
       (2) Removal of cross references.--Section 111(b)(8) of 
     title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``sections 115, 131, 135, and 157'' and inserting ``sections 
     131 and 135''.
       (f) Earlier Filing Date for Inventor and Joint Inventor.--
     Section 120 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``which is filed by an inventor or inventors named'' 
     and inserting ``which names an inventor or joint inventor''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Right of priority.--Section 172 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``and the time specified 
     in section 102(d)''.
       (2) Limitation on remedies.--Section 287(c)(4) of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the earliest 
     effective filing date of which is prior to'' and inserting 
     ``which has an effective filing date before''.
       (3) International application designating the united 
     states: effect.--Section 363 of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``except as otherwise provided in 
     section 102(e) of this title''.
       (4) Publication of international application: effect.--
     Section 374 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``sections 102(e) and 154(d)'' and inserting 
     ``section 154(d)''.
       (5) Patent issued on international application: effect.--
     The second sentence of section 375(a) of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Subject to section 
     102(e) of this title, such'' and inserting ``Such''.
       (6) Limit on right of priority.--Section 119(a) of title 
     35, United States Code, is amended by striking ``; but no 
     patent shall be granted'' and all that follows through ``one 
     year prior to such filing''.
       (7) Inventions made with federal assistance.--Section 
     202(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``publication, on sale, or public use,'' 
     and all that follows through ``obtained in the United 
     States'' and inserting ``the 1-year period referred to in 
     section 102(a) would end before the end of that 2-year 
     period''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the statutory'' and inserting ``that 1-
     year''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``any statutory bar date 
     that may occur under this title due to publication, on sale, 
     or public use'' and inserting ``the expiration of the 1-year 
     period referred to in section 102(a)''.
       (h) Repeal of Interfering Patent Remedies.--Section 291 of 
     title 35, United States Code, and the item relating to that 
     section in the table of sections for chapter 29 of title 35, 
     United States Code, are repealed.
       (i) Action for Claim to Patent on Derived Invention.--
     Section 135(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Dispute Over Right to Patent.--
       ``(1) Institution of derivation proceeding.--An applicant 
     may request initiation of a derivation proceeding to 
     determine the right of the applicant to a patent by filing a 
     request which sets forth with particularity the basis for 
     finding that an earlier applicant derived the claimed 
     invention from the applicant requesting the proceeding and, 
     without authorization, filed an application claiming such 
     invention. Any such request may only be made within 1 year 
     after the date of first publication of an application or of 
     the issuance of a patent, whichever is earlier, containing a 
     claim that is the same or is substantially the same as the 
     claimed invention, must be made under oath, and must be 
     supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director 
     determines that patents or applications for patent naming 
     different individuals as the inventor interfere with one 
     another because of a dispute over the right to patent under 
     section 101, the Director shall institute a derivation 
     proceeding for the purpose of determining which applicant is 
     entitled to a patent.
       ``(2) Determination by patent trial and appeal board.--In 
     any proceeding under this subsection, the Patent Trial and 
     Appeal Board--
       ``(A) shall determine the question of the right to patent;
       ``(B) in appropriate circumstances, may correct the naming 
     of the inventor in any application or patent at issue; and
       ``(C) shall issue a final decision on the right to patent.
       ``(3) Derivation proceeding.--The Board may defer action on 
     a request to initiate a derivation proceeding until 3 months 
     after the date on which the Director issues a patent to the 
     applicant whose application has the earlier effective filing 
     date of the commonly claimed invention.
       ``(4) Effect of final decision.--The final decision of the 
     Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to the claim of an 
     applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the United 
     States Patent and Trademark Office on the claims involved. 
     The Director may issue a patent to an applicant who is 
     determined by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to have the 
     right to patent. The final decision of the Board, if adverse 
     to a patentee, shall, if no appeal or other review of the 
     decision has been or can be taken or had, constitute 
     cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice 
     of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the 
     patent distributed after such cancellation by the United 
     States Patent and Trademark Office.''.
       (j) Elimination of References to Interferences.--(1) 
     Sections 6, 41, 134, 141, 145, 146, 154, 305, and 314 of 
     title 35, United States Code, are each amended by striking 
     ``Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Patent Trial and Appeal Board''.
       (2) Sections 141, 146, and 154 of title 35, United States 
     Code, are each amended--
       (A) by striking ``an interference'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``a derivation proceeding''; and
       (B) by striking ``interference'' each additional place it 
     appears and inserting ``derivation proceeding''.
       (3) The section heading for section 134 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board''.

       (4) The section heading for section 135 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 135. Derivation proceedings''.

       (5) The section heading for section 146 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 146. Civil action in case of derivation proceeding''.

       (6) Section 154(b)(1)(C) of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``interferences'' and inserting 
     ``derivation proceedings''.
       (7) The item relating to section 6 in the table of sections 
     for chapter 1 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

``6. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.''.
       (8) The items relating to sections 134 and 135 in the table 
     of sections for chapter 12 of title 35, United States Code, 
     are amended to read as follows:

``134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
``135. Derivation proceedings.''.
       (9) The item relating to section 146 in the table of 
     sections for chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:

``146. Civil action in case of derivation proceeding.''.
       (10) Certain Appeals.--Section 1295(a)(4)(A) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United 
     States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patent 
     applications, derivation proceedings, and post-grant review 
     proceedings, at the instance of an applicant for a patent or 
     any party to a patent interference (commenced before the 
     effective date of the Patent Reform Act of 2009), derivation 
     proceeding, or post-grant review proceeding, and any such 
     appeal shall waive any right of such applicant or party to 
     proceed under section 145 or 146 of title 35;''.

     SEC. 3. INVENTOR'S OATH OR DECLARATION.

       (a) Inventor's Oath or Declaration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 115 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 115. Inventor's oath or declaration

       ``(a) Naming the Inventor; Inventor's Oath or 
     Declaration.--An application for patent that is filed under 
     section 111(a) or that commences the national stage under 
     section 371 (including an application under section 111 that 
     is filed by an inventor for an invention for which an 
     application has previously been filed under this title by 
     that inventor) shall include, or be amended to include, the 
     name of the inventor of any claimed invention in the 
     application. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an 
     individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a 
     claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute 
     an oath or declaration in connection with the application.
       ``(b) Required Statements.--An oath or declaration under 
     subsection (a) shall contain statements that--
       ``(1) the application was made or was authorized to be made 
     by the affiant or declarant; and
       ``(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the 
     original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed 
     invention in the application.
       ``(c) Additional Requirements.--The Director may specify 
     additional information relating to the inventor and the 
     invention that is required to be included in an oath or 
     declaration under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Substitute Statement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In lieu of executing an oath or 
     declaration under subsection (a), the applicant for patent 
     may provide a substitute statement under the circumstances 
     described in paragraph (2) and such additional circumstances 
     that the Director may specify by regulation.
       ``(2) Permitted circumstances.--A substitute statement 
     under paragraph (1) is permitted with respect to any 
     individual who--

[[Page S3168]]

       ``(A) is unable to file the oath or declaration under 
     subsection (a) because the individual--
       ``(i) is deceased;
       ``(ii) is under legal incapacity; or
       ``(iii) cannot be found or reached after diligent effort; 
     or
       ``(B) is under an obligation to assign the invention but 
     has refused to make the oath or declaration required under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(3) Contents.--A substitute statement under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) identify the individual with respect to whom the 
     statement applies;
       ``(B) set forth the circumstances representing the 
     permitted basis for the filing of the substitute statement in 
     lieu of the oath or declaration under subsection (a); and
       ``(C) contain any additional information, including any 
     showing, required by the Director.
       ``(e) Making Required Statements in Assignment of Record.--
     An individual who is under an obligation of assignment of an 
     application for patent may include the required statements 
     under subsections (b) and (c) in the assignment executed by 
     the individual, in lieu of filing such statements separately.
       ``(f) Time for Filing.--A notice of allowance under section 
     151 may be provided to an applicant for patent only if the 
     applicant for patent has filed each required oath or 
     declaration under subsection (a) or has filed a substitute 
     statement under subsection (d) or recorded an assignment 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (e).
       ``(g) Earlier-Filed Application Containing Required 
     Statements or Substitute Statement.--The requirements under 
     this section shall not apply to an individual with respect to 
     an application for patent in which the individual is named as 
     the inventor or a joint inventor and that claims the benefit 
     under section 120 or 365(c) of the filing of an earlier-filed 
     application, if--
       ``(1) an oath or declaration meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (a) was executed by the individual and was filed 
     in connection with the earlier-filed application;
       ``(2) a substitute statement meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (d) was filed in the earlier filed application 
     with respect to the individual; or
       ``(3) an assignment meeting the requirements of subsection 
     (e) was executed with respect to the earlier-filed 
     application by the individual and was recorded in connection 
     with the earlier-filed application.
       ``(h) Supplemental and Corrected Statements; Filing 
     Additional Statements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person making a statement required 
     under this section may withdraw, replace, or otherwise 
     correct the statement at any time. If a change is made in the 
     naming of the inventor requiring the filing of 1 or more 
     additional statements under this section, the Director shall 
     establish regulations under which such additional statements 
     may be filed.
       ``(2) Supplemental statements not required.--If an 
     individual has executed an oath or declaration under 
     subsection (a) or an assignment meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (e) with respect to an application for patent, the 
     Director may not thereafter require that individual to make 
     any additional oath, declaration, or other statement 
     equivalent to those required by this section in connection 
     with the application for patent or any patent issuing 
     thereon.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--No patent shall be invalid or 
     unenforceable based upon the failure to comply with a 
     requirement under this section if the failure is remedied as 
     provided under paragraph (1).
       ``(i) Acknowledgment of Penalties.--Any declaration or 
     statement filed pursuant to this section shall contain an 
     acknowledgment that any willful false statement made in such 
     declaration or statement is punishable under section 1001 of 
     title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.
       (2) Relationship to divisional applications.--Section 121 
     of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking ``If 
     a divisional application'' and all that follows through 
     ``inventor.''.
       (3) Requirements for nonprovisional applications.--Section 
     111(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``by the applicant'' 
     and inserting ``or declaration'';
       (B) in the heading for paragraph (3), by striking ``and 
     oath''; and
       (C) by striking ``and oath'' each place it appears.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section 115 
     in the table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``115. Inventor's oath or declaration.''.
       (b) Filing by Other Than Inventor.--Section 118 of title 
     35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 118. Filing by other than inventor

       ``A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an 
     obligation to assign the invention may make an application 
     for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient 
     proprietary interest in the matter may make an application 
     for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on 
     proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action 
     is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. If the 
     Director grants a patent on an application filed under this 
     section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall 
     be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice 
     to the inventor as the Director considers to be 
     sufficient.''.
       (c) Specification.--Section 112 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``The specification'' and inserting ``(a) 
     In General.--The specification''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and shall set forth'' and all that 
     follows through ``his invention''; and
       (2) in the second paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``The specifications'' and inserting ``(b) 
     Conclusion.--The specifications''; and
       (B) by striking ``applicant regards as his invention'' and 
     inserting ``inventor or a joint inventor regards as the 
     invention'';
       (3) in the third paragraph, by striking ``A claim'' and 
     inserting ``(c) Form.--A claim'';
       (4) in the fourth paragraph, by striking ``Subject to the 
     following paragraph,'' and inserting ``(d) Reference in 
     Dependent Forms.--Subject to subsection (e),'';
       (5) in the fifth paragraph, by striking ``A claim'' and 
     inserting ``(e) Reference in Multiple Dependent Form.--A 
     claim''; and
       (6) in the last paragraph, by striking ``An element'' and 
     inserting ``(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.--An 
     element''.

     SEC. 4. DAMAGES.

       (a) Damages.--Section 284 of title 35, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 284. Damages

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Compensatory damages.--Upon finding for a claimant, 
     the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to 
     compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a 
     reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the 
     infringer, together with interest and costs as determined by 
     the court.
       ``(2) Increased damages.--When the damages are not found by 
     a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the 
     court may increase the damages up to 3 times the amount found 
     or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not 
     apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this 
     title.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Subsections (b) through (h) of this 
     section apply only to the determination of the amount of 
     reasonable royalty and shall not apply to the determination 
     of other types of damages.
       ``(b) Hypothetical Negotiation.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `reasonable royalty' means the amount that 
     the infringer would have agreed to pay and the claimant would 
     have agreed to accept if the infringer and claimant had 
     voluntarily negotiated a license for use of the invention at 
     the time just prior to when the infringement began. The court 
     or the jury, as the case may be, shall assume that the 
     infringer and claimant would have agreed that the patent is 
     valid, enforceable, and infringed.
       ``(c) Appropriate Factors.--The court or the jury, as the 
     case may be, may consider any factors that are relevant to 
     the determination of the amount of a reasonable royalty.
       ``(d) Comparable Patents.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of a reasonable royalty shall 
     not be determined by comparison to royalties paid for patents 
     other than the patent in suit unless--
       ``(A) such other patents are used in the same or an 
     analogous technological field;
       ``(B) such other patents are found to be economically 
     comparable to the patent in suit; and
       ``(C) evidence of the value of such other patents is 
     presented in conjunction with or as confirmation of other 
     evidence for determining the amount of a reasonable royalty.
       ``(2) Factors.--Factors that may be considered to determine 
     whether another patent is economically comparable to the 
     patent in suit under paragraph (1)(A) include whether--
       ``(A) the other patent is comparable to the patent in suit 
     in terms of the overall significance of the other patent to 
     the product or process licensed under such other patent; and
       ``(B) the product or process that uses the other patent is 
     comparable to the infringing product or process based upon 
     its profitability or a like measure of value.
       ``(e) Financial Condition.--The financial condition of the 
     infringer as of the time of the trial shall not be relevant 
     to the determination of the amount of a reasonable royalty.
       ``(f) Sequencing.--Either party may request that a patent-
     infringement trial be sequenced so that the court or the 
     jury, as the case may be, decides questions of the patent's 
     infringement and validity before the issue of the amount of a 
     reasonable royalty is presented to the court or the jury, as 
     the case may be. The court shall grant such a request absent 
     good cause to reject the request, such as the absence of 
     issues of significant damages or infringement and validity. 
     The sequencing of a trial pursuant to this subsection shall 
     not affect other matters, such as the timing of discovery.
       ``(g) Experts.--In addition to the expert disclosure 
     requirements under rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure, a party that intends to present the 
     testimony of an expert relating to the amount of a reasonable 
     royalty shall provide--
       ``(1) to the other parties to that civil action, the expert 
     report relating to damages, including all data and other 
     information considered by the expert in forming the opinions 
     of the expert; and
       ``(2) to the court, at the same time as to the other 
     parties, the complete statement of

[[Page S3169]]

     all opinions that the expert will express and the basis and 
     reasons for those opinions.
       ``(h) Jury Instructions.--On the motion of any party and 
     after allowing any other party to the civil action a 
     reasonable opportunity to be heard, the court shall determine 
     whether there is no legally sufficient evidence to support 1 
     or more of the contentions of a party relating to the amount 
     of a reasonable royalty. The court shall identify for the 
     record those factors that are supported by legally sufficient 
     evidence, and shall instruct the jury to consider only those 
     factors when determining the amount of a reasonable royalty. 
     The jury may not consider any factor for which legally 
     sufficient evidence has not been admitted at trial.''.
       (b) Testimony by Experts.--Chapter 29 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 298. Testimony by experts

       ``(a) Federal Rule.--In a patent case, the court shall 
     ensure that the testimony of a witness qualified as an expert 
     by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education meets 
     the requirements set forth in rule 702 of the Federal Rules 
     of Evidence.
       ``(b) Determination of Reliability.--To determine whether 
     an expert's principles and methods are reliable, the court 
     may consider, among other factors--
       ``(1) whether the expert's theory or technique can be or 
     has been tested;
       ``(2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to 
     peer review and publication;
       ``(3) the known or potential error rate of the theory or 
     technique, and the existence and maintenance of standards 
     controlling the technique's operation;
       ``(4) the degree of acceptance of the theory or technique 
     within the relevant scientific or specialized community;
       ``(5) whether the theory or technique is employed 
     independently of litigation; or
       ``(6) whether the expert has adequately considered or 
     accounted for readily available alternative theories or 
     techniques.
       ``(c) Required Explanation.--The court shall explain its 
     reasons for allowing or barring the introduction of an 
     expert's proposed testimony under this section.''.

     SEC. 5. POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Reexamination.--Section 303(a) of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Within 3 months after the owner of a patent files a 
     request for reexamination under section 302, the Director 
     shall determine whether a substantial new question of 
     patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is 
     raised by the request, with or without consideration of other 
     patents or printed publications. The existence of a 
     substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by 
     the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously 
     cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office.''.
       (b) Repeal of Optional Inter Partes Reexamination 
     Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 
     317, and 318 of title 35, United States Code, and the items 
     relating to those sections in the table of sections, are 
     repealed.
       (2) Effective date.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     provisions of sections 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, and 
     318 of title 35, United States Code, shall continue to apply 
     to any inter partes reexamination determination request filed 
     on or before the effective date of subsection (c).
       (c) Post-Grant Review Proceedings.--Part III of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

              ``CHAPTER 32--POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

``Sec.
``321. Petition for post-grant review.
``322. Relation to other proceedings or actions.
``323. Requirements of petition.
``324. Publication and public availability of petition.
``325. Consolidation or stay of proceedings.
``326. Submission of additional information.
``327. Institution of post-grant review proceedings.
``328. Determination not appealable.
``329. Conduct of post-grant review proceedings.
``330. Patent owner response.
``331. Proof and evidentiary standards.
``332. Amendment of the patent.
``333. Settlement.
``334. Decision of the board.
``335. Effect of decision.
``336. Appeal.

     ``Sec. 321. Petition for post-grant review

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     chapter, a person who has a substantial economic interest 
     adverse to a patent may file with the Office a petition to 
     institute a post-grant review proceeding for that patent. If 
     instituted, such a proceeding shall be deemed to be either a 
     first-period proceeding or a second-period proceeding. The 
     Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by 
     the person requesting the proceeding, in such amounts as the 
     Director determines to be reasonable, considering the 
     aggregate costs of the post-grant review proceeding and the 
     status of the petitioner.
       ``(b) First-Period Proceeding.--
       ``(1) Scope.--A petitioner in a first-period proceeding may 
     request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a 
     patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) 
     or (3) of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the 
     patent or any claim).
       ``(2) Filing deadline.--A petition for a first-period 
     proceeding shall be filed not later than 9 months after the 
     grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent.
       ``(c) Second-Period Proceeding.--
       ``(1) Scope.--A petitioner in a second-period proceeding 
     may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a 
     patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 
     102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of 
     patents or printed publications.
       ``(2) Filing deadline.--A petition for a second-period 
     proceeding shall be filed after the later of either--
       ``(A) 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a 
     reissue of a patent; or
       ``(B) if a first-period proceeding is instituted under 
     section 327, the date of the termination of such first-period 
     proceeding.

     ``Sec. 322. Relation to other proceedings or actions

       ``(a) Early Actions.--A first-period proceeding may not be 
     instituted until after a civil action alleging infringement 
     of the patent is finally concluded if--
       ``(1) the infringement action is filed within 3 months 
     after the grant of the patent;
       ``(2) a stay of the proceeding is requested by the patent 
     owner;
       ``(3) the Director determines that the infringement action 
     is likely to address the same or substantially the same 
     questions of patentability that would be addressed in the 
     proceeding; and
       ``(4) the Director determines that a stay of the proceeding 
     would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
       ``(b) Pending Civil Actions.--
       ``(1) Infringer's action.--A post-grant review proceeding 
     may not be instituted or maintained if the petitioner or real 
     party in interest has filed a civil action challenging the 
     validity of a claim of the patent.
       ``(2) Patent owner's action.--A second-period proceeding 
     may not be instituted if the petition requesting the 
     proceeding is filed more than 3 months after the date on 
     which the petitioner, real party in interest, or his privy is 
     required to respond to a civil action alleging infringement 
     of the patent.
       ``(3) Stay or dismissal.--The Director may stay or dismiss 
     a second-period proceeding if the petitioner or real party in 
     interest challenges the validity of a claim of the patent in 
     a civil action.
       ``(c) Duplicative Proceedings.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on post-grant review and reexamination 
     proceedings.--A post-grant review or reexamination proceeding 
     may not be instituted if the petition requesting the 
     proceeding identifies the same petitioner or real party in 
     interest and the same patent as a previous petition 
     requesting a post-grant review proceeding.
       ``(2) Prohibition on first-period proceedings.--A first-
     period proceeding may not be instituted if the petition 
     requests cancellation of a claim in a reissue patent that is 
     identical to or narrower than a claim in the original patent 
     from which the reissue patent was issued, and the time 
     limitations in section 321(b)(2) would bar filing a post-
     grant review petition for such original patent.
       ``(d) Estoppel.--The petitioner in any post-grant review 
     proceeding under this chapter may not request or maintain a 
     proceeding before the Office with respect to a claim, or 
     assert either in a civil action arising in whole or in part 
     under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the 
     International Trade Commission that a claim in a patent is 
     invalid, on any ground that--
       ``(1) the petitioner, real party in interest, or his privy 
     raised during a post-grant review proceeding resulting in a 
     final decision under section 334; or
       ``(2) the petitioner, real party in interest, or his privy 
     could have raised during a second-period proceeding resulting 
     in a final decision under section 334.

     ``Sec. 323. Requirements of petition

       ``A petition filed under section 321 may be considered only 
     if--
       ``(1) the petition is accompanied by payment of the fee 
     established by the Director under section 321;
       ``(2) the petition identifies all real parties in interest;
       ``(3) the petition identifies, in writing and with 
     particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which 
     the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that 
     supports the grounds for each challenged claim, including--
       ``(A) copies of patents and printed publications that the 
     petitioner relies upon in support of the petition; and
       ``(B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and 
     opinions, if the petitioner relies on other factual evidence 
     or on expert opinions;
       ``(4) the petition provides such other information as the 
     Director may require by regulation; and
       ``(5) the petitioner provides copies of any of the 
     documents required under paragraphs (3) and (4) to the patent 
     owner or, if applicable, the designated representative of the 
     patent owner.

     ``Sec. 324. Publication and public availability of petition

       ``(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the receipt 
     of a petition under section 321, the Director shall--
       ``(1) publish the petition in the Federal Register; and
       ``(2) make that petition available on the website of the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office.
       ``(b) Public Availability.--The file of any proceeding 
     under this chapter shall be made

[[Page S3170]]

     available to the public except that any petition or document 
     filed with the intent that it be sealed shall be accompanied 
     by a motion to seal. Such petition or document shall be 
     treated as sealed, pending the outcome of the ruling on the 
     motion. Failure to file a motion to seal will result in the 
     pleadings being placed in the public record.

     ``Sec. 325. Consolidation or stay of proceedings

       ``(a) First-Period Proceedings.--If more than 1 petition 
     for a first-period proceeding is properly filed against the 
     same patent and the Director determines that more than 1 of 
     these petitions warrants the instituting of a first-period 
     proceeding under section 327, the Director shall consolidate 
     such proceedings into a single first-period proceeding.
       ``(b) Second-Period Proceedings.--If the Director 
     institutes a second-period proceeding, the Director, in his 
     discretion, may join as a party to that second-period 
     proceeding any person who properly files a petition under 
     section 321 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary 
     response under section 330 or the expiration of the time for 
     filing such a response, determines warrants the instituting 
     of a second-period proceeding under section 327.
       ``(c) Other Proceedings.--Notwithstanding sections 135(a), 
     251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of any 
     post-grant review proceeding the Director may determine the 
     manner in which any proceeding or matter involving the patent 
     that is before the Office may proceed, including providing 
     for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such 
     proceeding or matter.

     ``Sec. 326. Submission of additional information

       ``A petitioner under this chapter shall file such 
     additional information with respect to the petition as the 
     Director may require by regulation.

     ``Sec. 327. Institution of post-grant review proceedings

       ``(a) Threshold.--The Director may not authorize a post-
     grant review proceeding to commence unless the Director 
     determines that the information presented in the petition, if 
     such information is not rebutted, would provide a sufficient 
     basis to conclude that at least 1 of the claims challenged in 
     the petition is unpatentable.
       ``(b) Additional Grounds.--In the case of a petition for a 
     first-period proceeding, the determination required under 
     subsection (a) may be satisfied by a showing that the 
     petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is 
     important to other patents or patent applications.
       ``(c) Successive Petitions.--The Director may not institute 
     an additional second-period proceeding if a prior second-
     period proceeding has been instituted and the time period 
     established under section 329(b)(2) for requesting joinder 
     under section 325(b) has expired, unless the Director 
     determines that--
       ``(1) the additional petition satisfies the requirements 
     under subsection (a); and
       ``(2) either--
       ``(A) the additional petition presents exceptional 
     circumstances; or
       ``(B) such an additional proceeding is reasonably required 
     in the interests of justice.
       ``(d) Timing.--The Director shall determine whether to 
     institute a post-grant review proceeding under this chapter 
     within 3 months after receiving a preliminary response under 
     section 330 or the expiration of the time for filing such a 
     response.
       ``(e) Notice.--The Director shall notify the petitioner and 
     patent owner, in writing, of the Director's determination 
     under subsection (a). The Director shall publish each notice 
     of institution of a post-grant review proceeding in the 
     Federal Register and make such notice available on the 
     website of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 
     Such notice shall list the date on which the proceeding shall 
     commence.

     ``Sec. 328. Determination not appealable

       ``The determination by the Director regarding whether to 
     institute a post-grant review proceeding under section 327 
     shall not be appealable.

     ``Sec. 329. Conduct of post-grant review proceedings

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall prescribe 
     regulations--
       ``(1) in accordance with section 2(b)(2), establishing and 
     governing post-grant review proceedings under this chapter 
     and their relationship to other proceedings under this title;
       ``(2) for setting forth the standards for showings of 
     sufficient grounds to institute a proceeding under section 
     321(a) and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 327;
       ``(3) providing for the publication in the Federal Register 
     all requests for the institution of post-grant proceedings;
       ``(4) establishing procedures for the submission of 
     supplemental information after the petition is filed; and
       ``(5) setting forth procedures for discovery of relevant 
     evidence, including that such discovery shall be limited to 
     evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by 
     either party in the proceeding.
       ``(b) Post-Grant Review Regulations.--The regulations 
     required under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       ``(1) require that the final determination in any post-
     grant review proceeding be issued not later than 1 year after 
     the date on which the Director notices the institution of a 
     post-grant proceeding under this chapter, except that the 
     Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year period 
     by not more than 6 months, and may adjust the time periods in 
     this paragraph in the case of joinder under section 325(b);
       ``(2) set a time period for requesting joinder under 
     section 325(b);
       ``(3) allow for discovery upon order of the Director, 
     provided that in a second-period proceeding discovery shall 
     be limited to--
       ``(A) the deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits or 
     declarations; and
       ``(B) what is otherwise necessary in the interest of 
     justice;
       ``(4) prescribe sanctions for abuse of discovery, abuse of 
     process, or any other improper use of the proceeding, such as 
     to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or unnecessary 
     increase in the cost of the proceeding;
       ``(5) provide for protective orders governing the exchange 
     and submission of confidential information;
       ``(6) ensure that any information submitted by the patent 
     owner in support of any amendment entered under section 332 
     is made available to the public as part of the prosecution 
     history of the patent; and
       ``(7) provide either party with the right to an oral 
     hearing as part of the proceeding.
       ``(c) Considerations.--In prescribing regulations under 
     this section, the Director shall consider the effect on the 
     economy, the integrity of the patent system, and the 
     efficient administration of the Office.
       ``(d) Conduct of Proceeding.--The Patent Trial and Appeal 
     Board shall, in accordance with section 6(b), conduct each 
     proceeding authorized by the Director.

     ``Sec. 330. Patent owner response

       ``(a) Preliminary Response.--If a post-grant review 
     petition is filed under section 321, the patent owner shall 
     have the right to file a preliminary response--
       ``(1) in the case of a first-period proceeding, within 2 
     months of the expiration of the time for filing a petition 
     for a first-period proceeding; and
       ``(2) in the case of a second-period proceeding, within a 
     time period set by the Director.
       ``(b) Content of Response.--A preliminary response to a 
     petition for a post-grant review proceeding shall set forth 
     reasons why no post-grant review proceeding should be 
     instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any 
     requirement of this chapter.
       ``(c) Additional Response.--After a post-grant review 
     proceeding under this chapter has been instituted with 
     respect to a patent, the patent owner shall have the right to 
     file, within a time period set by the Director, a response to 
     the petition. The patent owner shall file with the response, 
     through affidavits or declarations, any additional factual 
     evidence and expert opinions on which the patent owner relies 
     in support of the response.

     ``Sec. 331. Proof and evidentiary standards

       ``(a) In General.--The presumption of validity set forth in 
     section 282 of this title shall apply in post-grant review 
     proceedings instituted under this chapter.
       ``(b) Burden of Proof.--The petitioner shall have the 
     burden of proving a proposition of invalidity by a 
     preponderance of the evidence in a first-period proceeding 
     and by clear and convincing evidence in a second-period 
     proceeding.

     ``Sec. 332. Amendment of the patent

       ``(a) In General.--During a post-grant review proceeding 
     instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 
     motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following 
     ways:
       ``(1) Cancel any challenged patent claim.
       ``(2) For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable 
     number of substitute claims.
       ``(b) Additional Motions.--Additional motions to amend may 
     be permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and the 
     patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a 
     proceeding under section 333, or upon the request of the 
     patent owner for good cause shown.
       ``(c) Scope of Claims.--An amendment under this section may 
     not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or 
     introduce new matter.

     ``Sec. 333. Settlement

       ``(a) In General.--A post-grant review proceeding 
     instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with 
     respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the 
     petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has 
     decided the matter before the request for termination is 
     filed. If the post-grant review proceeding is terminated with 
     respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel under 
     this chapter shall apply to that petitioner. If no petitioner 
     remains in the post-grant review proceeding, the Office may 
     terminate the post-grant review proceeding or proceed to a 
     final written decision under section 334.
       ``(b) Agreements in Writing.--Any agreement or 
     understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, 
     including any collateral agreements referred to in such 
     agreement or understanding, made in connection with, or in 
     contemplation of, the termination of a post-grant review 
     proceeding under this section shall be in writing and a true 
     copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office before the 
     termination of the post-grant review proceeding as between 
     the parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party 
     filing such agreement or understanding so requests, the copy 
     shall be kept separate from the file of the post-grant review 
     proceeding, and shall

[[Page S3171]]

     be made available only to Federal Government agencies upon 
     written request, or to any other person on a showing of good 
     cause.

     ``Sec. 334. Decision of the board

       ``If the post-grant review proceeding is instituted and not 
     dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal 
     Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to 
     the patentability of any patent claim challenged and any new 
     claim added under section 332.

     ``Sec. 335. Effect of decision

       ``If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final 
     decision under section 334 and the time for appeal has 
     expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director 
     shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of 
     the patent finally determined to be unpatentable and 
     incorporating in the patent by operation of the certificate 
     any new claim determined to be patentable.

     ``Sec. 336. Appeal

       ``A party dissatisfied with the final determination of the 
     Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review 
     proceeding instituted under this chapter may appeal the 
     determination under sections 141 through 144. Any party to 
     the post-grant review proceeding shall have the right to be a 
     party to the appeal.''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part III of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``32. Post-Grant Review Proceedings 321.''.

       (e) Regulations and Effective Date.--
       (1) Regulations.--The Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Intellectual Property and the Director of the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office (in this subsection referred to 
     as the ``Director'') shall, not later than the date that is 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, issue 
     regulations to carry out chapter 32 of title 35, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (c) of this section.
       (2) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and shall apply only to patents 
     issued on or after that date, except that, in the case of a 
     patent issued before the effective date of subsection (c) on 
     an application filed between September 15, 1999 and the 
     effective date of subsection (c), a petition for second-
     period review may be filed.
       (3) Pending interferences.--The Director shall determine 
     the procedures under which interferences commenced before the 
     effective date under paragraph (2) are to proceed, including 
     whether any such interference is to be dismissed without 
     prejudice to the filing of a petition for a post-grant review 
     proceeding under chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, 
     or is to proceed as if this Act had not been enacted. The 
     Director shall include such procedures in regulations issued 
     under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 6. DEFINITION; PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.

       (a) Definition.--Section 100 of title 35, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is further amended 
     in subsection (e), by striking ``or inter partes 
     reexamination under section 311''.
       (b) Patent Trial and Appeal Board.--Section 6 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 6. Patent trial and appeal board

       ``(a) Establishment and Composition.--There shall be in the 
     Office a Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Director, the 
     Deputy Director, the Commissioner for Patents, the 
     Commissioner for Trademarks, and the administrative patent 
     judges shall constitute the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
     The administrative patent judges shall be persons of 
     competent legal knowledge and scientific ability who are 
     appointed by the Secretary. Any reference in any Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or pertaining to the Board of 
     Patent Appeals and Interferences is deemed to refer to the 
     Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall--
       ``(1) on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse 
     decisions of examiners upon application for patents;
       ``(2) on written appeal of a patent owner, review adverse 
     decisions of examiners upon patents in reexamination 
     proceedings under chapter 30;
       ``(3) determine priority and patentability of invention in 
     derivation proceedings under subsection 135(a); and
       ``(4) conduct post-grant review proceedings under chapter 
     32.

     Each appeal, derivation, and post-grant review proceeding 
     shall be heard by at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and 
     Appeal Board, who shall be designated by the Director. Only 
     the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may grant rehearings.''.

     SEC. 7. SUBMISSIONS BY THIRD PARTIES AND OTHER QUALITY 
                   ENHANCEMENTS.

       Section 122 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person may submit for consideration 
     and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any 
     patent, published patent application, or other publication of 
     potential relevance to the examination of the application, if 
     such submission is made in writing before the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is 
     mailed in the application for patent; or
       ``(B) either--
       ``(i) 6 months after the date on which the application for 
     patent is published under section 122, or
       ``(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of 
     any claim by the examiner during the examination of the 
     application for patent,

     whichever occurs later.
       ``(2) Other requirements.--Any submission under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       ``(A) set forth a concise description of the asserted 
     relevance of each submitted document;
       ``(B) be accompanied by such fee as the Director may 
     prescribe; and
       ``(C) include a statement by the person making such 
     submission affirming that the submission was made in 
     compliance with this section.''.

     SEC. 8. VENUE.

       (a) Venue for Patent Cases.--Section 1400 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c) of section 
     1391 of this title, any civil action for patent infringement 
     or any action for declaratory judgment arising under any Act 
     of Congress relating to patents may be brought only in a 
     judicial district--
       ``(1) where the defendant has its principal place of 
     business or is incorporated;
       ``(2) where the defendant has committed acts of 
     infringement and has a regular and established physical 
     facility;
       ``(3) where the defendant has agreed or consented to be 
     sued;
       ``(4) where the invention claimed in a patent in suit was 
     conceived or actually reduced to practice;
       ``(5) where significant research and development of an 
     invention claimed in a patent in suit occurred at a regular 
     and established physical facility;
       ``(6) where a party has a regular and established physical 
     facility that such party controls and operates and has--
       ``(A) engaged in management of significant research and 
     development of an invention claimed in a patent in suit;
       ``(B) manufactured a product that embodies an invention 
     claimed in a patent in suit; or
       ``(C) implemented a manufacturing process that embodies an 
     invention claimed in a patent in suit;
       ``(7) where a nonprofit organization whose function is the 
     management of inventions on behalf of an institution of 
     higher education (as that term is defined under section 
     101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a))), including the patent in suit, has its principal 
     place of business; or
       ``(8) for foreign defendants that do not meet the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) or (2), according to section 
     1391(d) of this title.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments Relating to Venue.--Sections 32, 
     145, 146, 154(b)(4)(A), and 293 of title 35, United States 
     Code, and section 1071(b)(4) of an Act entitled ``Act to 
     provide for the registration and protection of trademarks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ``Trademark Act of 
     1946'' or the ``Lanham Act'') are each amended by striking 
     ``United States District Court for the District of Columbia'' 
     each place that term appears and inserting ``United States 
     District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia''.

     SEC. 9. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Fee Setting.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall have authority to set 
     or adjust by rule any fee established or charged by the 
     Office under sections 41 and 376 of title 35, United States 
     Code or under section 31 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 
     U.S.C. 1113) for the filing or processing of any submission 
     to, and for all other services performed by or materials 
     furnished by, the Office, provided that such fee amounts are 
     set to reasonably compensate the Office for the services 
     performed.
       (2) Reduction of fees in certain fiscal years.--In any 
     fiscal year, the Director--
       (A) shall consult with the Patent Public Advisory Committee 
     and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee on the 
     advisability of reducing any fees described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) after that consultation may reduce such fees.
       (3) Role of the public advisory committee.--The Director 
     shall--
       (A) submit to the Patent or Trademark Public Advisory 
     Committee, or both, as appropriate, any proposed fee under 
     paragraph (1) not less than 45 days before publishing any 
     proposed fee in the Federal Register;
       (B) provide the relevant advisory committee described in 
     subparagraph (A) a 30-day period following the submission of 
     any proposed fee, on which to deliberate, consider, and 
     comment on such proposal, and require that--
       (i) during such 30-day period, the relevant advisory 
     committee hold a public hearing related to such proposal; and
       (ii) the Director shall assist the relevant advisory 
     committee in carrying out such public hearing, including by 
     offering the use of Office resources to notify and promote 
     the hearing to the public and interested stakeholders;

[[Page S3172]]

       (C) require the relevant advisory committee to make 
     available to the public a written report detailing the 
     comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee 
     regarding any proposed fee;
       (D) consider and analyze any comments, advice, or 
     recommendations received from the relevant advisory committee 
     before setting or adjusting any fee; and
       (E) notify, through the Chair and Ranking Member of the 
     Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the Congress of any 
     final decision regarding proposed fees.
       (4) Publication in the federal register.--
       (A) In general.--Any rules prescribed under this subsection 
     shall be published in the Federal Register.
       (B) Rationale.--Any proposal for a change in fees under 
     this section shall--
       (i) be published in the Federal Register; and
       (ii) include, in such publication, the specific rationale 
     and purpose for the proposal, including the possible 
     expectations or benefits resulting from the proposed change.
       (C) Public comment period.--Following the publication of 
     any proposed fee in the Federal Register pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the Director shall seek public comment for 
     a period of not less than 45 days.
       (5) Congressional comment period.--Following the 
     notification described in paragraph (3)(E), Congress shall 
     have not more than 45 days to consider and comment on any 
     proposed fee under paragraph (1). No proposed fee shall be 
     effective prior to the end of such 45-day comment period.
       (6) Rule of construction.--No rules prescribed under this 
     subsection may diminish--
       (A) an applicant's rights under this title or the Trademark 
     Act of 1946; or
       (B) any rights under a ratified treaty.
       (b) Fees for Patent Services.--Division B of Public Law 
     108-447 is amended in title VIII of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, in section 801(a) by 
     striking ``During fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007,'', and 
     inserting ``Until such time as the Director sets or adjusts 
     the fees otherwise,''.
       (c) Adjustment of Trademark Fees.--Division B of Public Law 
     108-447 is amended in title VIII of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, in section 802(a) by 
     striking ``During fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007,'', and 
     inserting ``Until such time as the Director sets or adjusts 
     the fees otherwise,''.
       (d) Effective Date, Applicability, and Transitional 
     Provision.--Division B of Public Law 108-447 is amended in 
     title VIII of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, 
     the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, 
     in section 803(a) by striking ``and shall apply only with 
     respect to the remaining portion of fiscal year 2005 and 
     fiscal year 2006.''.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any other provision of Division B of 
     Public Law 108-447, including section 801(c) of title VII of 
     the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
       (2) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office.
       (3) Trademark act of 1946.--The term ``Trademark Act of 
     1946'' means an Act entitled ``Act to provide for the 
     registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, 
     to carry out the provisions of certain international 
     conventions, and for other purposes'', approved July 5, 1946 
     (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 or the Lanham Act).

     SEC. 10. APPLICANT QUALITY SUBMISSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 123. Additional information

       ``(a) Incentives.--The Director may, by regulation, offer 
     incentives to applicants who submit a search report, a 
     patentability analysis, or other information relevant to 
     patentability. Such incentives may include prosecution 
     flexibility, modifications to requirements for adjustment of 
     a patent term pursuant to section 154(b) of this title, or 
     modifications to fees imposed pursuant to section 9 of the 
     Patent Reform Act of 2009.
       ``(b) Admissibility of Record.--If the Director certifies 
     that an applicant has satisfied the requirements of the 
     regulations issued pursuant to this section with regard to a 
     patent, the record made in a matter or proceeding before the 
     Office involving that patent or efforts to obtain the patent 
     shall not be admissible to construe the patent in a civil 
     action or in a proceeding before the International Trade 
     Commission, except that such record may be introduced to 
     demonstrate that the patent owner is estopped from asserting 
     that the patent is infringed under the doctrine of 
     equivalents. The Director may, by regulation, identify any 
     material submitted in an attempt to satisfy the requirements 
     of any regulations issued pursuant to this section that also 
     shall not be admissible to construe the patent in a civil 
     action or in a proceeding before the International Trade 
     Commission.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to imply that, prior to the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Director either lacked or possessed the 
     authority to offer incentives to applicants who submit a 
     search report, a patentability analysis, or other information 
     relevant to patentability.

     SEC. 11. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 35, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 4(b), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 299. Civil sanctions for misconduct before the Office

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided under this section, a 
     patent shall not be held invalid or unenforceable on the 
     basis of misconduct before the Office. Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to preclude the imposition of 
     sanctions based upon criminal or antitrust laws (including 
     section 1001(a) of title 18, the first section of the Clayton 
     Act, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
     extent that section relates to unfair methods of 
     competition).
       ``(b) Information Relating to Possible Misconduct.--The 
     Director shall provide by regulation procedures for receiving 
     and reviewing information indicating that parties to a matter 
     or proceeding before the Office may have engaged in 
     misconduct in connection with such matter or proceeding.
       ``(c) Administrative Proceeding.--
       ``(1) Probable cause.--The Director shall determine, based 
     on information received and reviewed under subsection (b), if 
     there is probable cause to believe that 1 or more individuals 
     or parties engaged in misconduct consisting of intentionally 
     deceptive conduct of a material nature in connection with a 
     matter or proceeding before the Office. A determination of 
     probable cause by the Director under this paragraph shall be 
     final and shall not be reviewable on appeal or otherwise.
       ``(2) Determination.--If the Director finds probable cause 
     under paragraph (1), the Director shall, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, and not later than 1 year after 
     the date of such finding, determine whether misconduct 
     consisting of intentionally deceptive conduct of a material 
     nature in connection with the applicable matter or proceeding 
     before the Office has occurred. The proceeding to determine 
     whether such misconduct occurred shall be before an 
     individual designated by the Director.
       ``(3) Civil sanctions.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Director determines under 
     paragraph (2) that misconduct has occurred, the Director may 
     levy a civil penalty against the party that committed such 
     misconduct.
       ``(B) Factors.--In establishing the amount of any civil 
     penalty to be levied under subparagraph (A), the Director 
     shall consider--
       ``(i) the materiality of the misconduct;
       ``(ii) the impact of the misconduct on a decision of the 
     Director regarding a patent, proceeding, or application; and
       ``(iii) the impact of the misconduct on the integrity of 
     matters or proceedings before the Office.
       ``(C) Sanctions.--A civil penalty levied under subparagraph 
     (A) may consist of--
       ``(i) a penalty of up to $150,000 for each act of 
     misconduct;
       ``(ii) in the case of a finding of a pattern of misconduct, 
     a penalty of up to $1,000,000; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a finding of exceptional misconduct 
     establishing that an application for a patent amounted to a 
     fraud practiced by or at the behest of a real party in 
     interest of the application--

       ``(I) a determination that 1 or more claims of the patent 
     is unenforceable; or
       ``(II) a penalty of up to $10,000,000.

       ``(D) Joint and several liability.--Any party found to have 
     been responsible for misconduct in connection with any matter 
     or proceeding before the Office under this section may be 
     jointly and severally liable for any civil penalty levied 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Deposit with the treasury.--Any civil penalty levied 
     under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) accrue to the benefit of the United States 
     Government; and
       ``(ii) be deposited under `Miscellaneous Receipts' in the 
     United States Treasury.
       ``(F) Authority to bring action for recovery of 
     penalties.--
       ``(i) In general.--If any party refuses to pay or remit to 
     the United States Government a civil penalty levied under 
     this paragraph, the United States may recover such amounts in 
     a civil action brought by the United States Attorney General 
     on behalf of the Director in the United States District Court 
     for the Eastern District of Virginia.
       ``(ii) Injunctions.--In any action brought under clause 
     (i), the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of Virginia may, as the court determines 
     appropriate, issue a mandatory injunction incorporating the 
     relief sought by the Director.
       ``(4) Combined proceedings.--If the misconduct that is the 
     subject of a proceeding under this subsection is attributed 
     to a practitioner who practices before the Office, the 
     Director may combine such proceeding with any other 
     disciplinary proceeding under section 32 of this title.
       ``(d) Obtaining Evidence.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the period in which an 
     investigation for a finding of probable cause or for a 
     determination of whether misconduct occurred in connection 
     with any matter or proceeding before the Office is being 
     conducted, the Director may require, by subpoena issued by 
     the Director, persons

[[Page S3173]]

     to produce any relevant information, documents, reports, 
     answers, records, accounts, papers, and other documentary or 
     testimonial evidence.
       ``(2) Additional authority.--For the purposes of carrying 
     out this section, the Director--
       ``(A) shall have access to, and the right to copy, any 
     document, paper, or record, the Director determines pertinent 
     to any investigation or determination under this section, in 
     the possession of any person;
       ``(B) may summon witnesses, take testimony, and administer 
     oaths;
       ``(C) may require any person to produce books or papers 
     relating to any matter pertaining to such investigation or 
     determination; and
       ``(D) may require any person to furnish in writing, in such 
     detail and in such form as the Director may prescribe, 
     information in their possession pertaining to such 
     investigation or determination.
       ``(3) Witnesses and evidence.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director may require the attendance 
     of any witness and the production of any documentary evidence 
     from any place in the United States at any designated place 
     of hearing.
       ``(B) Contumacy.--
       ``(i) Orders of the court.--In the case of contumacy or 
     failure to obey a subpoena issued under this subsection, any 
     appropriate United States district court or territorial court 
     of the United States may issue an order requiring such 
     person--

       ``(I) to appear before the Director;
       ``(II) to appear at any other designated place to testify; 
     and
       ``(III) to produce documentary or other evidence.

       ``(ii) Failure to obey.--Any failure to obey an order 
     issued under this subparagraph court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       ``(4) Depositions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any proceeding or investigation under 
     this section, the Director may order a person to give 
     testimony by deposition.
       ``(B) Requirements of deposition.--
       ``(i) Oath.--A deposition may be taken before an individual 
     designated by the Director and having the power to administer 
     oaths.
       ``(ii) Notice.--Before taking a deposition, the Director 
     shall give reasonable notice in writing to the person ordered 
     to give testimony by deposition under this paragraph. The 
     notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and 
     place of taking the deposition.
       ``(iii) Written transcript.--The testimony of a person 
     deposed under this paragraph shall be under oath. The person 
     taking the deposition shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, 
     a written transcript of the testimony taken. The transcript 
     shall be subscribed by the deponent. Each deposition shall be 
     filed promptly with the Director.
       ``(e) Appeal.--
       ``(1) In general.--A party may appeal a determination under 
     subsection (c)(2) that misconduct occurred in connection with 
     any matter or proceeding before the Office to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
       ``(2) Notice to uspto.--A party appealing under this 
     subsection shall file in the Office a written notice of 
     appeal directed to the Director, within such time after the 
     date of the determination from which the appeal is taken as 
     the Director prescribes, but in no case less than 60 days 
     after such date.
       ``(3) Required actions of the director.--In any appeal 
     under this subsection, the Director shall transmit to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a 
     certified list of the documents comprising the record in the 
     determination proceeding. The court may request that the 
     Director forward the original or certified copies of such 
     documents during the pendency of the appeal. The court shall, 
     before hearing the appeal, give notice of the time and place 
     of the hearing to the Director and the parties in the appeal.
       ``(4) Authority of the court.--The United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have power to enter, 
     upon the pleadings and evidence of record at the time the 
     determination was made, a judgment affirming, modifying, or 
     setting aside, in whole or in part, the determination, with 
     or without remanding the case for a rehearing. The court 
     shall not set aside or remand the determination made under 
     subsection (c)(2) unless there is not substantial evidence on 
     the record to support the findings or the determination is 
     not in accordance with law. Any sanction levied under 
     subsection (c)(3) shall not be set aside or remanded by the 
     court, unless the court determines that such sanction 
     constitutes an abuse of discretion of the Director.
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `person' means any individual, partnership, corporation, 
     company, association, firm, partnership, society, trust, 
     estate, cooperative, association, or any other entity capable 
     of suing and being sued in a court of law.''.
       (b) Suspension or Exclusion From Practice.--Section 32 of 
     title 35, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Director may'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Director may''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Tolling of Time Period.--The time period for 
     instituting a proceeding under subsection (a), as provided in 
     section 2462 of title 28, shall not begin to run where fraud, 
     concealment, or misconduct is involved until the information 
     regarding fraud, concealment, or misconduct is made known in 
     the manner set forth by regulation under section 2(b)(2)(D) 
     to an officer or employee of the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office designated by the Director to receive such 
     information.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided under 
     paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Inapplicability to pending litigation.--Subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 298 of title 35, United States Code (as 
     added by the amendment made by subsection (a) of this 
     section), shall apply to any civil action filed on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 12. CONVERSION OF DEADLINES.

       (a) Sections 141, 156(d)(2)(A), 156(d)(2)(B)(ii), 
     156(d)(5)(C), and 282 of title 35, United States Code, are 
     each amended by striking ``30 days'' or ``thirty days'' each 
     place that term appears and inserting ``1 month''.
       (b) Sections 135(c), 142, 145, 146, 156(d)(2)(B)(ii), 
     156(d)(5)(C), and the matter preceding clause (i) of section 
     156(d)(2)(A) of title 35, United States Code, are each 
     amended by striking ``60 days'' or ``sixty days'' each place 
     that term appears and inserting ``2 months''.
       (c) The matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 
     156(d)(1) and sections 156(d)(2)(B)(ii) and 156(d)(5)(E) of 
     title 35, United States Code, are each amended by striking 
     ``60-day'' or ``sixty-day'' each place that term appears and 
     inserting ``2-month''.
       (d) Sections 155 and 156(d)(2)(B)(i) of title 35, United 
     States Code, are each amended by striking ``90 days'' or 
     ``ninety days'' each place that term appears and inserting 
     ``3 months''.
       (e) Sections 154(b)(4)(A) and 156(d)(2)(B)(i) of title 35, 
     United States Code, are each amended by striking ``180 days'' 
     each place that term appears and inserting ``6 months''.

     SEC. 13. CHECK IMAGING PATENTS.

       (a) Limitation.--Section 287 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) With respect to the use by a financial institution 
     of a check collection system that constitutes an infringement 
     under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of 
     sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the 
     financial institution with respect to such a check collection 
     system.
       ``(2) For the purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `check' has the meaning given under section 
     3(6) of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (12 
     U.S.C. 5002(6));
       ``(B) the term `check collection system' means the use, 
     creation, transmission, receipt, storing, settling, or 
     archiving of truncated checks, substitute checks, check 
     images, or electronic check data associated with or related 
     to any method, system, or process that furthers or 
     effectuates, in whole or in part, any of the purposes of the 
     Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (12 U.S.C. 5001 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the term `financial institution' has the meaning 
     given under section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 
     U.S.C. 6809);
       ``(D) the term `substitute check' has the meaning given 
     under section 3(16) of the Check Clearing for the 21st 
     Century Act (12 U.S.C. 5002(16)); and
       ``(E) the term `truncate' has the meaning given under 
     section 3(18) of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 5002(18)).
       ``(3) This subsection shall not limit or affect the 
     enforcement rights of the original owner of a patent where 
     such original owner--
       ``(A) is directly engaged in the commercial manufacture and 
     distribution of machinery or the commercial development of 
     software; and
       ``(B) has operated as a subsidiary of a bank holding 
     company, as such term is defined under section 2(a) of the 
     Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(a)), prior 
     to July 19, 2007.
       ``(4) A party shall not manipulate its activities, or 
     conspire with others to manipulate its activities, for 
     purposes of establishing compliance with the requirements of 
     this subsection, including, without limitation, by granting 
     or conveying any rights in the patent, enforcement of the 
     patent, or the result of any such enforcement.''.
       (b) Takings.--If this section is found to establish a 
     taking of private property for public use without just 
     compensation, this section shall be null and void. The 
     exclusive remedy for such a finding shall be invalidation of 
     this section. In the event of such invalidation, for purposes 
     of application of the time limitation on damages in section 
     286 of title 35, United States Code, any action for patent 
     infringement or counterclaim for infringement that could have 
     been filed or continued but for this section, shall be 
     considered to have been filed on the date of enactment of 
     this Act or continued from such date of enactment.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any civil action for patent infringement 
     pending or filed on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 14. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FUNDING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:

[[Page S3174]]

       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
       (2) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the public enterprise 
     revolving fund established under subsection (c).
       (3) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office.
       (4) Trademark act of 1946.--The term ``Trademark Act of 
     1946'' means an Act entitled ``Act to provide for the 
     registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, 
     to carry out the provisions of certain international 
     conventions, and for other purposes'', approved July 5, 1946 
     (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Trademark Act of 1946'' or the ``Lanham Act'').
       (5) Undersecretary.--The term ``Undersecretary'' means the 
     Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Section 42 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by striking ``Patent and Trademark 
     Office Appropriation Account'' and inserting ``United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund''; and
       (B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), fees authorized 
     in this title or any other Act to be charged or established 
     by the Director shall be collected by and shall be available 
     to the Director to carry out the activities of the Patent and 
     Trademark Office.
       ``(2) All fees available to the Director under section 31 
     of the Trademark Act of 1946 shall be used only for the 
     processing of trademark registrations and for other 
     activities, services, and materials relating to trademarks 
     and to cover a proportionate share of the administrative 
     costs of the Patent and Trademark Office.
       ``(3) All fees available to the Director under paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3) of section 41(a) and section 41(d)(1) of 
     this title, and those fees available to the Director which 
     are derived from filing fees, Request for Continued 
     Examination fees, and Information Disclosure Statement 
     submission fees established by regulation pursuant to section 
     41(d)(2) of this title, shall be used only for funding the 
     portion of the salary of patent examiners attributable to 
     examining patent applications and shall not be applied to 
     fund non-examining activities or supervisory activities.''.
       (2) Effective date; termination.--The amendments made by 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect on the later of--
       (A) October 1, 2009; or
       (B) the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) USPTO Revolving Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a revolving fund to be known as the 
     ``United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise 
     Fund''. Any amounts in the Fund shall be available for use by 
     the Director without fiscal year limitation.
       (2) Derivation of resources.--There shall be deposited into 
     the Fund--
       (A) any fees collected under sections 41, 42, and 376 of 
     title 35, United States Code, provided that notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, if such fees are collected by, 
     and payable to, the Director, the Director shall transfer 
     such amounts to the Fund; and
       (B) any fees collected under section 31 of the Trademark 
     Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1113).
       (3) Expenses.--Amounts deposited into the Fund under 
     paragraph (2) shall be available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, to cover--
       (A) all expenses to the extent consistent with the 
     limitation on the use of fees set forth in section 42(c) of 
     title 35, United States Code, including all administrative 
     and operating expenses, determined in the discretion of the 
     Under Secretary to be ordinary and reasonable, incurred by 
     the Under Secretary and the Director for the continued 
     operation of all services, programs, activities, and duties 
     of the Office, as such services, programs, activities, and 
     duties are described under--
       (i) title 35, United States Code; and
       (ii) the Trademark Act of 1946; and
       (B) all expenses incurred pursuant to any obligation, 
     representation, or other commitment of the Office.
       (4) Custodians of money.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of 
     title 31, United States Code, any funds received by the 
     Director and transferred to Fund, or any amounts directly 
     deposited into the Fund, may be used--
       (A) to cover the expenses described in paragraph (3); and
       (B) to purchase obligations of the United States, or any 
     obligations guaranteed by the United States.
       (d) Annual Report.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the Under Secretary and the Director shall 
     submit a report to Congress which shall--
       (1) summarize the operations of the Office for the 
     preceding fiscal year, including financial details and staff 
     levels broken down by each major activity of the Office;
       (2) detail the operating plan of the Office, including 
     specific expense and staff needs for the upcoming fiscal 
     year;
       (3) describe the long term modernization plans of the 
     Office;
       (4) set forth details of any progress towards such 
     modernization plans made in the previous fiscal year; and
       (5) include the results of the most recent audit carried 
     out under subsection (e).
       (e) Annual Spending Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the beginning 
     of each fiscal year, the Director shall notify the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the plan for 
     the obligation and expenditure of the total amount of the 
     funds for that fiscal year in accordance with section 605 of 
     the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-108; 119 Stat. 
     2334).
       (2) Contents.--Each plan under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) summarize the operations of the Office for the current 
     fiscal year, including financial details and staff levels 
     with respect to major activities; and
       (B) detail the operating plan of the Office, including 
     specific expense and staff needs, for the current fiscal 
     year.
       (f) Audit.--The Under Secretary shall, on an annual basis, 
     provide for an independent audit of the financial statements 
     of the Office. Such audit shall be conducted in accordance 
     with generally acceptable accounting procedures.
       (g) Budget.--In accordance with section 9301 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Fund shall prepare and submit each 
     year to the President a business-type budget in a way, and 
     before a date, the President prescribes by regulation for the 
     budget program.

     SEC. 15. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Joint Inventions.--Section 116 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph, by striking ``When'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Joint Inventions.--When'';
       (2) in the second paragraph, by striking ``If a joint 
     inventor'' and inserting ``(b) Omitted Inventor.--If a joint 
     inventor''; and
       (3) in the third paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(c) Correction 
     of Errors in Application.--Whenever''; and
       (B) by striking ``and such error arose without any 
     deceptive intent on his part,''.
       (b) Filing of Application in Foreign Country.--Section 184 
     of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Except when'' and inserting ``(a) Filing 
     in Foreign Country.--Except when''; and
       (B) by striking ``and without deceptive intent'';
       (2) in the second paragraph, by striking ``The term'' and 
     inserting ``(b) Application.--The term''; and
       (3) in the third paragraph, by striking ``The scope'' and 
     inserting ``(c) Subsequent Modifications, Amendments, and 
     Supplements.--The scope''.
       (c) Filing Without a License.--Section 185 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``and without 
     deceptive intent''.
       (d) Reissue of Defective Patents.--Section 251 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Whenever reissue of any patent is authorized under 
     section 298 or''; and
       (B) by striking ``without deceptive intention'';
       (2) in the second paragraph, by striking ``The Director'' 
     and inserting ``(b) Multiple Reissued Patents.--The 
     Director'';
       (3) in the third paragraph, by striking ``The provision'' 
     and inserting ``(c) Applicability of This Title.--The 
     provisions''; and
       (4) in the last paragraph, by striking ``No reissued 
     patent'' and inserting ``(d) Reissue Patent Enlarging Scope 
     of Claims.--No reissued patent''.
       (e) Effect of Reissue.--Section 253 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph, by striking ``Whenever, without 
     deceptive intention'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
     Whenever''; and
       (2) in the second paragraph, by striking ``in like manner'' 
     and inserting ``(b) Additional Disclaimer or Dedication.--In 
     the manner set forth in subsection (a),''.
       (f) Correction of Named Inventor.--Section 256 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first paragraph, by striking ``Whenever'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Correction.--Whenever''; and
       (2) in the second paragraph, by striking ``The error'' and 
     inserting ``(b) Patent Valid if Error Corrected.--The 
     error''.
       (g) Presumption of Validity.--Section 282 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking ``A 
     patent'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--A patent'';
       (2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking ``The 
     following'' and inserting ``(b) Defenses.--The following''; 
     and
       (3) in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking ``In 
     actions'' and inserting ``(c) Notice of Actions; Actions 
     During Extension of Patent Term.--In actions''.
       (h) Action for Infringement.--Section 288 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``, without any 
     deceptive intention,''.
       (i) Government-Owned Facilities.--Section 202(c)(7)(E)(i) 
     of title 35, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``up to an amount equal to 5 percent of the 
     annual budget of the facility,''; and
       (2) striking ``provided that'' and all that follows through 
     ``in this clause (D);''.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, the provisions of this

[[Page S3175]]

     Act shall take effect 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to any patent issued on 
     or after that effective date.
       (b) Special Provisions Relating to Determinations of 
     Validity and Patentability.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by section 2 shall 
     apply to any application for a patent and any patent issued 
     pursuant to such an application that at any time--
       (A) contained a claim to a claimed invention that has an 
     effective filing date, as such date is defined under section 
     100(h) of title 35, United States Code, 1 year or more after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (B) asserted a claim to a right of priority under section 
     119, 365(a), or 365(b) of title 35, United States Code, to 
     any application that was filed 1 year or more after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; or
       (C) made a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 
     365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any application to 
     which the amendments made by section 2 otherwise apply under 
     this subsection.
       (2) Patentability.--For any application for patent and any 
     patent issued pursuant to such an application to which the 
     amendments made by section 2 apply, no claim asserted in such 
     application shall be patentable or valid unless such claim 
     meets the conditions of patentability specified in section 
     102(g) of title 35, United States Code, as such conditions 
     were in effect on the day prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act, if the application at any time--
       (A) contained a claim to a claimed invention that has an 
     effective filing date as defined in section 100(h) of title 
     35, United States Code, earlier than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act;
       (B) asserted a claim to a right of priority under section 
     119, 365(a), or 365(b) of title 35, United States Code, to 
     any application that was filed earlier than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (C) made a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 
     365(c) of title 35, United States Code, with respect to which 
     the requirements of section 102(g) applied.
       (3) Validity of patents.--For the purpose of determining 
     the validity of a claim in any patent or the patentability of 
     any claim in a nonprovisional application for patent that is 
     made before the effective date of the amendments made by 
     sections 2 and 3, other than in an action brought in a court 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (A) the provisions of subsections (c), (d), and (f) of 
     section 102 of title 35, United States Code, that were in 
     effect on the day prior to the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall be deemed to be repealed;
       (B) the amendments made by section 3 of this Act shall 
     apply, except that a claim in a patent that is otherwise 
     valid under the provisions of section 102(f) of title 35, 
     United States Code, as such provision was in effect on the 
     day prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall not be 
     invalidated by reason of this paragraph; and
       (C) the term ``in public use or on sale'' as used in 
     section 102(b) of title 35, United States Code, as such 
     section was in effect on the day prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be deemed to exclude the use, 
     sale, or offer for sale of any subject matter that had not 
     become available to the public.
       (4) Continuity of intent under the create act.--The 
     enactment of section 102(b)(3) of title 35, United States 
     Code, under section (2)(b) of this Act is done with the same 
     intent to promote joint research activities that was 
     expressed, including in the legislative history, through the 
     enactment of the Cooperative Research and Technology 
     Enhancement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-453; the ``CREATE 
     Act''), the amendments of which are stricken by section 2(c) 
     of this Act. The United States Patent and Trademark Office 
     shall administer section 102(b)(3) of title 35, United States 
     Code, in a manner consistent with the legislative history of 
     the CREATE Act that was relevant to its administration by the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 612. A bill to amend section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States 
Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act) to 
provide that statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirements of 
that Act shall specifically cite to the provision of that Act 
authorizing such exemptions, to ensure an open and deliberative process 
in Congress by providing for related legislative proposals to 
explicitly state such required citations, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, our Nation celebrates Sunshine 
Week--a time to recognize and promote openness in our Government. At 
this important time of year, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn 
to reintroduce the OPEN FOIA Act--a bipartisan bill to promote more 
openness regarding statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information 
Act, FOIA.
  This bipartisan bill builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I 
began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA. Together, 
we introduced, and Congress ultimately enacted, the OPEN Government 
Act--the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. I thank 
Senator Cornyn for his work and leadership on this important issue. I 
also thank President Obama--who was a cosponsor of the OPEN Government 
Act when he was in the Senate--for his deep commitment to FOIA. 
President Obama clearly demonstrated his commitment to open Government 
when he issued a new directive to strengthen FOIA during his first full 
day in office.
  The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a 
statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its 
intention to do so explicitly and clearly. This commonsense bill 
mirrors bipartisan legislation that the Judiciary Committee favorably 
reported, and the Senate unanimously passed, during the 109th Congress, 
S. 1181. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain 
Government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive 
Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant 
democracy.
  For more than four decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most 
important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know, and to 
balance the Government's power with the need for Government 
accountability. The Freedom of Information Act contains a number of 
exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law 
enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and 
other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) 
exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically 
exempted from FOIA by statute be withheld from the public. In recent 
years, we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions 
being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the 
detriment of the American public's right to know.
  The bedrock principles of open Government lead me to believe that 
(b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and 
vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Too often, 
legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very 
complex and lengthy bills, and these new exemptions are never debated 
openly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice 
is the erosion of the public's right to know, and the shirking of 
Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions.
  The OPEN FOIA Act will help stop this practice and shine more light 
on the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA. That will be 
the best antidote to the ``exemption creep'' that we have witnessed in 
recent years.
  When he recently addressed a joint session of the Congress and the 
American people, President Obama said that ``I know that we haven't 
agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the 
future when we will part ways. But, I also know that every American who 
is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. 
That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming 
months, and where we return after those debates are done.''
  Sunshine Week reminds all of us that open Government is not a 
Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue and a 
virtue that all Americans can embrace. Democratic and Republican 
Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the 
past. It is in this same bipartisan spirit that I urge all Members to 
support this bipartisan FOIA reform bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 612

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``OPEN FOIA Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIFIC CITATIONS IN STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute 
     (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute--

[[Page S3176]]

       ``(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the 
     public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the 
     issue; or
       ``(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or 
     refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
       ``(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN 
     FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Collins, 
        Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Hagan, Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. 
        McCaskill):
  S. 614. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Women 
Airforce Service Pilots (``WASP''); to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
is sponsored by every woman in the Senate. All 17 of us have come 
together to introduce legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal 
to the Women Airforce Service Pilots, called the WASP. Senator Mikulski 
and I are taking the lead on this with the other 15 women Senators to 
finally honor over 1,000 of the bravest, most courageous women in U.S. 
military history.
  This is a picture of those brave World War II pilots. They were the 
first women in history to fly America's military aircraft. Between 1942 
and 1944, they were recruited to fly non-combat missions so every 
available male pilot could be deployed in combat.
  The women pilots who graduated from Army Air Force flight training 
earned their silver WASP wings in Texas. The first class graduated at 
Ellington Field in Houston and the remaining classes from Avenger Field 
in Sweetwater, TX.
  Throughout their service, these courageous women flew over 60 million 
miles in every type of aircraft and on every type of mission flown by 
Army Air Force male pilots except direct combat missions. Although they 
took the military oath and were promised military status when they 
entered training, they were never afforded Active-Duty military status, 
were never commissioned, and were not granted veteran status until 
1977, over 30 years after they had served. All these women volunteered 
to serve their country in wartime. They paid their own way to Texas for 
training, and when victory seemed certain and the program was shut 
down, they paid their own way back home.
  Over 25,000 women applied for the program, but only 1,830 qualified 
women pilots were accepted. Unlike the males, females were required to 
be qualified pilots before they could even apply for the Army Air 
Force's military flight training program. By the time the war ended, 38 
women pilots had lost their lives while flying for their country. Their 
families were not allowed to have an American flag placed on their 
coffins.
  I wrote about the WASP in my 2004 book, ``American Heroines: The 
Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country.'' I wanted to raise public 
awareness about these military pioneers who have had a tremendous 
impact on the role of women in the military today. Their examples paved 
the way for the Armed Forces to lift the ban on women attending 
military flight training in the 1970s and opened the door for women to 
be fully integrated as pilots in the Armed Forces.
  Today, women fly every type of aircraft, from combat fighter aircraft 
to the space shuttle. However, despite their cultural impact, the WASP 
have never received honors, nor have they been formally recognized by 
Congress for their wartime military service--until now. We, the women 
of the Senate, are introducing legislation to award the Congressional 
Gold Medal to the courageous WASP of World War II.
  The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest and most distinguished 
award this body can award to a civilian. These women are certainly 
worthy.
  There are precedents for this action. In 2000 and 2006, this body 
awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the Navajo Code Talkers and the 
Tuskegee Airmen, respectively. Those heroes deserved the same type of 
distinction, and they, too, served in World War II and were finally 
appropriately honored by their Government. Now it is time for Congress 
to celebrate the courage of another group of remarkable Americans who 
served with courage and honor and whose example brought historic change 
to our Nation. Of the 1,102 WASP, approximately 300 are still alive 
today and are living in almost every State of our Nation. They have 
earned this honor, and the time to bestow the honor is now before any 
of them are away from us and not able to come to the ceremony which I 
hope we will have.
  I am so pleased that every female Senator, all 17 of us, are 
cosponsors of this bill, and I hope the rest of our colleagues will 
also join and that we can pass this bill expeditiously.
  I would like to take a moment, with this wonderful picture in the 
background, to read from the bill that we have just introduced today:

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Women Airforce Service Pilots of WWII, known as the 
     ``WASP'', were the first women in history to fly American 
     military aircraft;
       (2) more than 60 years ago, they flew fighter, bomber, 
     transport, and training aircraft in defense of America's 
     freedom;
       (3) they faced overwhelming cultural and gender bias 
     against women in nontraditional roles and overcame multiple 
     injustices and inequities in order to serve their country;
       (4) through their actions, the WASP eventually were the 
     catalyst for revolutionary reform in the integration of women 
     pilots into the Armed Services;
       (5) during the early months of World War II, there was a 
     severe shortage of combat pilots;
       (6) Jacqueline Cochran, America's leading woman pilot of 
     the time, convinced General Hap Arnold, Chief of the Army Air 
     Forces, that women, if given the same training as men, would 
     be equally capable of flying military aircraft and could then 
     take over some of the stateside military flying jobs, thereby 
     releasing hundreds of male pilots for combat duty;
       (7) the severe loss of male combat pilots made the 
     necessity of utilizing women pilots to help in the war effort 
     clear to General Arnold, and a women's pilot training program 
     was soon approved;
       (8) it was not until August, 1943, that the women aviators 
     would receive their official name;
       (9) General Arnold ordered that all women pilots flying 
     military aircraft, including 28 civilian women ferry pilots, 
     would be named ``WASP'', Women Airforce Service Pilots;
       (10) more than 25,000 American women applied for training, 
     but only 1,830 were accepted and took the oath;
       (11) exactly 1,074 of those trainees successfully completed 
     the 21 to 27 weeks of Army Air Force flight training, 
     graduated, and received their Army Air Force orders to report 
     to their assigned air base;
       (12) on November 16, 1942, the first class of 29 women 
     pilots reported to the Houston, Texas Municipal Airport and 
     began the same military flight training as the male Army Air 
     Force cadets were taking;
       (13) due to a lack of adequate facilities at the airport, 3 
     months later the training program was moved to Avenger Field 
     in Sweetwater, Texas;
       (14) WASP were eventually stationed at 120 Army air bases 
     all across America;
       (15) they flew more than 60,000,000 miles for their country 
     in every type of aircraft and on every type of assignment 
     flown by the male Army Air Force pilots, except combat;
       (16) WASP assignments included test piloting, instructor 
     piloting, towing targets for air-to-air gunnery practice, 
     ground-to-air anti-aircraft practice, ferrying, transporting 
     personnel and cargo (including parts for the atomic bomb), 
     simulated strafing, smoke laying, night tracking, and flying 
     drones;

  In October 1943, male pilots were refusing to fly the B-26 Martin 
Marauder, known as the Widowmaker, because of its fatality record. 
General Arnold ordered WASP director Jacqueline Cochran to collect 25 
WASP to be trained to fly the B-26 to prove to the male pilots that it 
was safe to fly.
  During the existence of the WASP, 38 women lost their lives while 
serving their country. Their bodies were sent home in poorly crafted 
pine boxes. Their burial was at the expense of their families or 
classmates. There were no gold stars allowed in their parent's windows, 
and because they were not considered military, no American flags were 
allowed on their coffins.
  In 1944, General Arnold made a personal request to Congress to 
militarize the WASP, and it was denied.
  On December 7, 1944, in a speech to the last graduating class of 
WASP, General Arnold said:

       You and more than 900 of your sisters have shown you can 
     fly wingtip to wingtip with your brothers. I salute you . . . 
     We of the Army Air Force are proud of you. We will never 
     forget our debt to you.

  With victory in World War II almost certain, on December 2, 1944, the 
WASP

[[Page S3177]]

were quietly and unceremoniously disbanded. There were no honors, no 
benefits, and very few thank-yous. Just as they had paid their own way 
to enter training, they paid their way back home.
  After their honorable service in the military, the WASP military 
records were immediately sealed, stamped ``classified'' or ``secret,'' 
and filed away in Government archives unavailable to the historians who 
wrote the history of World War II or the scholars who compiled the 
history textbooks used today, with many of the records not being 
declassified until the 1980s. Consequently, the WASP story is a missing 
chapter in the history of the Air Force, the history of aviation, and 
the history of the United States of America.
  In 1977, 33 years after the WASP were disbanded, the Congress finally 
voted to give the WASP the veteran status they had earned, but these 
heroic pilots were not invited to the signing ceremony at the White 
House, and it was not until 7 years later that their medals were 
delivered in the mail in plain brown envelopes.
  In the late 1970s, more than 30 years after the WASP flew in World 
War II, women were finally permitted to attend military pilot training 
in the U.S. Armed Forces. Thousands of women aviators flying support 
aircraft had benefited from the service of the WASP and followed in 
their footsteps.
  In 1993, the WASP were once again referenced during congressional 
hearings regarding the contributions women could make to the military, 
which eventually led to women being able to fly military fighter, 
bomber, and attack aircraft in combat. Hundreds of U.S. servicewomen 
combat pilots have seized the opportunity to fly fighter aircraft in 
recent conflicts, all thanks to the pioneering steps taken by the WASP.
  The WASP have maintained a tight-knit community, forged by the common 
experiences of serving their country during war. As part of their 
desire to educate America on the WASP history, WASP have assisted Wings 
Across America, an organization dedicated to educating the American 
public, with much effort aimed at children, about the remarkable 
accomplishments of these World War II veterans, and they have been 
honored with exhibits at museums throughout our country.
  Now it is time to give these incredible women pioneers the 
Congressional Gold Medal, who, along with the Tuskegee Airmen and the 
Navajo Code Talkers, are people who have served with courage and valor 
to our country, and they are people who really have not complained. 
They are people who did their duty, even with some discrimination in 
the Armed Forces. But they were never bitter, and they always knew what 
a service they had given. We have now honored the Navajo Code Talkers 
and the great Tuskegee Airmen, and I hope we will also accord the 
greatest honor we can bestow as a Congress to the WASP of World War II.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
a bipartisan bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Women 
Airforce Service Pilots--the WASP. We are introducing this bill in 
March, which is Women's History Month. It is time to honor and 
recognize women who have made a difference in our Nation's history. It 
is a time to honor women who serve as role models. That is exactly what 
this legislation does.
  The WASP were women pilots from across the Nation who volunteered to 
serve in World War II. They flew America's military aircraft during the 
war, risking their lives in the service of their nation. They came from 
all walks of life, but they came together to serve our country as the 
first women trained to fly American military aircraft. They faced 
overwhelming cultural and gender bias, received unequal pay, did not 
have full military status, and were barred from becoming military 
officers, even though their male counterparts performing similar duties 
all received officer rank.
  In 1943, General Arnold combined two women flying organizations and 
formed the Women Airforce Service Pilots. Within months, these women 
paid their own way to Texas to enter training. Each woman was already a 
licensed pilot, a requirement not imposed on men to apply to flight 
school. The WASP were still required to learn to fly ``the Army way.''
  The WASP were assured they would be militarized and become part of 
the Army. These promise were not kept. The WASP took the same oath of 
office, they marched, but as pilots, they received less pay than men. 
They did not receive benefits. No VA benefits, no GI bill, no burial 
rights for the 38 WASP who were killed in service to our Nation. Fellow 
WASP had to ``take the nickels out of the Coke machine'' to help send 
their bodies home.
  Over 25,000 women applied to be part of the war effort in the WASP. 
Many volunteers received a telegram asking for their service. 
Ultimately, 1102 women earned their wings as pilots. Thirteen of these 
brave women were from Maryland: women like Barbara Shoemaker, who 
joined from the Women's Auxiliary Flying Squadron; Elaine Harmon, who 
as a WASP trained male pilots in instrument flying; Iola Magruder, who 
flew the B-18 ``Bolo''; Jane Tedeschi, who stretched all night before 
joining the WASP so she could meet the minimum height requirement; and 
Florence Marston, who flew the B-26 ``Widowmaker,'' notorious for its 
number of early accidents.
  These brave women flew over 60 million miles in 2 years. They flew 
every type of aircraft and every type of mission as the men, except 
combat missions. They towed aerial targets while being shot at with 
live ammunition. They transported cargo. They tested repaired aircraft. 
They ferried aircraft from factories like Fairchild in Hagerstown, MD, 
to points across the country. They were stationed at 120 air bases 
throughout the country.
  The WASP were not established to be a replacement for the men; 
instead, they enabled men to fly the combat missions. They found and 
fulfilled the service they could. These women were committed and they 
believed they could do what our country needed at the time we needed 
it.
  The WASP were disbanded in December 1944, when they were told they 
were ``no longer needed.'' Just as they paid for transport to training, 
they paid their own way home. For 33 years their military records were 
classified. For 33 years, their contributions were hidden from 
historians and textbooks. For 33 years, these brave women were denied 
veterans benefits.
  These women were trailblazers. They displayed honor and courage and 
flew the most complex aircraft of the age. They are patriots. They are 
an inspiration to today's women in aviation. They opened the door for 
today's women to fly in the military in aircraft ranging from cargo and 
trainers, to fighters and bombers, and even the space shuttle. They 
inspire young girls to pursue technical fields and aviation. They are 
role models who deserve to be honored. We owe the WASP our ``thank 
you''--not in words, but in deeds. For their courage, service and 
dedication to our Nation, they deserve the most distinguished honor 
Congress can give: the Congressional Gold Medal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Voinovich):
  S. 615. A bill to provide additional personnel authorities for the 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along 
with Senators Lieberman, Coburn, Levin, Grassley, McCaskill, McCain, 
and Voinovich, a bill that will provide the Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, with the authority it needs to 
quickly hire experienced, well-qualified staff to conduct rigorous 
oversight of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
  The United States has provided approximately $32 billion in 
humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. 
Congress created the SIGAR in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense 
Authorization Act to conduct and oversee independent and objective 
audits, inspections, and investigations relating to these funds.
  Although the SIGAR was sworn into office on July 22, 2008, the office 
has not yet conducted any independent audits or investigations. The 
SIGAR has filed two quarterly reports, but both of those reports were 
descriptive in nature and reviewed the work of other oversight 
entities.

[[Page S3178]]

  Staffing shortages have constrained the SIGAR's oversight efforts. 
Although authorized a total of 18 auditors, 13 inspectors, and three 
investigators, SIGAR had only five auditors, two inspectors, and one 
investigator as of last week.
  SIGAR's efforts to quickly hire experienced staff have been hindered 
by the often long and difficult government hiring process. The office's 
hiring needs are further complicated by the challenging task of 
recruiting well-qualified staff willing to spend a year in a dangerous 
environment.
  The bill that we introduce today will provide the SIGAR with the 
authority to select, appoint, and employ the staff needed to perform 
effective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. The 
authority is similar to that provided to other government ``temporary 
organizations.'' The legislation will allow SIGAR to identify and 
quickly hire candidates, avoiding the bureaucratic hurdles that beset 
the normal civil service hiring process. Employees hired under this new 
authority can serve until the termination of the SIGAR's office.
  The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which served 
as the model for the legislation to create the SIGAR, faced comparable 
hiring challenges. This bill contains hiring authority similar to that 
provided to the SIGIR so that office could quickly hire experienced 
staff.
  With his staff, the SIGIR has been successful in providing thorough 
oversight of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Since 2004, the SIGIR has 
produced 20 quarterly reports, 135 audits, 141 inspections, and 4 
``lessons-learned'' reports. SIGIR's oversight work has saved or 
recovered more than $81 million in U.S. taxpayer funds and has put $224 
million to better use.
  If the SIGAR would have had this authority from the office's 
inception, it likely would be much further along in conducting its 
oversight work. We expect that once the SIGAR can quickly hire the 
skilled and experienced auditors and investigators it needs, the 
office's oversight activities will greatly increase.
  I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 618. A bill to improve the calculation of, the reporting of, and 
the accountability for, secondary graduation rates; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this past fall our Nation's high school 
graduation class of 2012 took their first steps into their local high 
school as freshmen. The best research, based on data from all 50 
States, tells us that one third of that class of freshmen will not walk 
across a stage and receive their diploma with their peers in four 
years.
  The numbers are clear: we face a national high school dropout crisis. 
Every year, an estimated 1.23 million students drop out of high school. 
To put that number in perspective, it is equivalent to the entire 
population of the ninth largest city in the country, Dallas.
  The President laid out the crisis we face in his February 24 address 
to Congress:
  ``In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is 
your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to 
opportunity--it is a prerequisite.''
  ``Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations 
require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our 
citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high 
school dropout rates of any industrialized nation.''
  By any measure, my home state of Iowa is a national leader in terms 
of graduating students in four years. According to Education Week's 
Diplomas Count, Iowa has the second highest graduation rate in the 
country, at almost 83 percent for the class of 2005. Iowa should be 
applauded for continually graduating such a high percentage of its 
students in spite of the challenges present in many rural and low-
income school districts.
  Yet such a lofty number masks a pervasive inability to graduate 
African-American and Latino students on a level equal to their peers. 
The graduation rate for African-American children in Iowa is 25 points 
below the overall 4-year rate. The discrepancy between the rate of 
Latino children graduating in four years and their peers' rate is even 
higher at 30 percent.
  Just as the data on racial and ethnic minorities paints a grim 
picture, a look into the Nation's graduation rates for students with 
disabilities shows many students continue to be failed by the system. 
The most recent data indicates that slightly more than half of all 
students with disabilities graduated from high school with a regular 
diploma. Those rates go down when examining different categories of 
students with disabilities. For instance, only 43 percent of students 
with emotional disturbances graduate from high school with a regular 
diploma. Bear in mind that many of these students do not have a 
learning disability, and with the proper supports and interventions 
they can achieve at the same levels expected of their peers.
  To reiterate, States like Iowa should be lauded for their success in 
graduating so many of their young people from high school in four 
years, but we must also hold those states accountable for their success 
or failure with vulnerable populations, or we are doomed to pay the 
price, both morally and economically. That is why I was proud to 
introduce the Every Student Counts Act last September, and why I am 
here to reintroduce this legislation in the Senate today.
  Since I introduced the first Every Student Counts Act, the Department 
of Education has taken laudable action to implement a 4-year high 
school graduation rate through regulations issued last October.
  However, the Department's action was not enough to address this 
crisis. The regulation leaves the specifics of the graduation rate 
goals and growth targets, and how to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress 
up to the States. In doing so, the Department indicated that it was 
more appropriate for Congress to define graduation rate goals, growth 
targets, and adequate yearly progress through statute. The Every 
Student Counts Act is designed to do just that.
  Because if we do not set clear, consistent, and high graduation rate 
goals, with aggressive and attainable graduation rate growth targets, 
we risk falling into the same trap of mediocrity and flat graduation 
rates that have led us to this crisis.
  Schools, school districts and States that are not already graduating 
a high number of students must be required to make annual progress to 
high graduation rates.
  This act sets a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for all students 
and disadvantaged populations. Schools, districts and States with 
graduation rates below 90 percent, in the aggregate or for any 
subgroup, will be required to increase their graduation rates an 
average of 3 percentage points per year in order to make adequate 
yearly progress required under the No Child Left Behind Law.
  In addition to setting high standards for graduation rates, the Every 
Student Counts Act will also make graduation rate calculations uniform 
and accurate. The bill requires that all states calculate their 
graduation rates in the same manner, allowing for more consistency and 
transparency. This bill will bring all 50 States together by requiring 
each State to report both a 4-year graduation rate and a cumulative 
graduation rate. A cumulative graduation rate will give parents a clear 
picture of how many students are graduating, while acknowledging that 
not all children will graduate in four years.
  Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to recognize the work of 
my colleague in the House, Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, who 
first sought to address this issue last year and today joins with me in 
reintroducing the Every Student Counts Act.
  I would also like to thank the growing list of organizations 
representing the interests of children across the country who have 
signed on to support the Every Student Counts Act. Specifically, I 
recognize the Alliance for Excellent Education and their President, 
former Governor of West Virginia Bob Wise, who have been champions in 
the movement to improve our high schools and turn back the dropout 
crisis.
  We have no more urgent educational challenge than bringing down the 
dropout rate, especially for minorities and children with disabilities. 
For reasons we all understand--poverty, poor nutrition, broken homes, 
disadvantage

[[Page S3179]]

childhoods--not all of our students come to school everyday ready to 
learn. In some cases, it is as though they have been set up to fail. 
They grow frustrated. They drop out. And, as a result, they face a 
lifetime of fewer opportunities and lower earnings. Economically, our 
nation cannot afford to lose one million students each year. Morally, 
we cannot allow children to continue to fall through the cracks. I 
believe the Every Student Counts Act puts us on the right track towards 
turning back the tide of high school dropouts and I ask my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 11, 2009.
       Dear Senator Harkin and Representative Scott: We, the 
     undersigned education, civil rights, and advocacy 
     organizations thank you for introducing the Every Student 
     Counts Act to ensure meaningful accountability for the 
     graduation rates of our nation's students. As you know, 
     educators and policymakers at all levels of government agree 
     that change is necessary on this issue.
       Only 70 percent of our nation's students graduate with a 
     regular diploma. Worse, just over half of African American 
     and Hispanic students graduate on time. Special education 
     students also have graduation rates of just over 50 percent. 
     Such poor graduation rates are untenable in a global economy 
     that demands an educated workforce. According to the 
     Department of Labor, 90 percent of the fastest-growing and 
     best-paying jobs in the United States require at least some 
     postsecondary education. It is imperative that the nation's 
     schools prepare their students to succeed in the twenty-
     first-century workforce.
       The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has focused the 
     nation's attention on the unacceptable achievement gap and 
     the need to improve outcomes for all students, particularly 
     minority students, English language learners, and students 
     with disabilities. However, NCLB does not place enough 
     importance on graduating the nation's high school students; 
     this fact--combined with weak state action in this area--has 
     given states, districts, and schools little incentive to 
     improve their graduation rates. As a response, the Secretary 
     of Education released regulations that created a uniform high 
     school graduation rate calculation and ensured that improving 
     high school graduation rates for all schools is part of the 
     federal accountability system. Although the regulations are a 
     laudable step in the right direction, we believe that the 
     Every Student Counts Act is a better approach to graduation 
     rate accountability because it provides clear and high 
     expectations for graduation rate goals and growth.
       The Every Student Counts Act would:
       Require a consistent and accurate calculation of graduation 
     rates across all fifty states and the District of Columbia to 
     ensure comparability and transparency;
       Require that graduation rate calculations be disaggregated 
     for both accountability and reporting purposes to ensure that 
     school improvement activities focus on all students and close 
     achievement gaps;
       Ensure that graduation rates and test scores are treated 
     equally in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations;
       Require aggressive, attainable, and uniform annual growth 
     targets as part of AYP to ensure consistent increases in 
     graduation rates for all schools;
       While maintaining the expectation that most students will 
     graduate in four years, recognize that a small number of 
     students take longer than four years to graduate and give 
     credit to schools, school districts, and states for 
     graduating those students; and
       Provide incentives for schools, districts, and states to 
     create programs to serve students who have already dropped 
     out and are over-age or undercredited.
       Again, we thank you for introducing the Every Student 
     Counts Act and for your leadership on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Excellent Education.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Federation of the Blind.
       American School Counselor Association America's Promise 
     Alliance.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Council of Administrators of Special Education.
       First Focus.
       Journey Programs.
       Knowledge Alliance.
       Learning Disabilities Association of America.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       National Association for the Education of Homeless Children 
     and Youth.
       National Association of Federally Impacted Schools.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       National Association of State Boards of Education.
       National Center for Learning Disabilities National 
     Collaboration for Youth.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Education Association.
       National Parent Teacher Association.
       Project Grad USA.
       Public Education Network.
       School Social Work Association of America.
       Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
       United Way of America.
       Youth Service America.
                                                       Joel Klein,
                         Chancellor, New York City Public Schools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Ms. Snowe)):
  S. 619. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
preserve the effectiveness of medically important antibiotics used in 
the treatment of human and animal diseases; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we face growing concerns about 
infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half 
century ago, following the development of modern antibiotics, Nobel 
Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet summed up what many experts believed when 
he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as 
the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the 
virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in 
social life''.
  How things have changed! Today many of the world's greatest killers 
are infectious diseases--including HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--and 
increasingly our Nation is susceptible. We have concerns about both 
natural pandemics--such as those caused by influenza--as well as 
manmade threats.
  At the same time that the threat has grown, we have seen an alarming 
trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating 
infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that 
the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will 
see. So it is critical to address preserving the lifesaving antibiotic 
drugs we have today so that they will be of use in treating disease 
when they are needed.
  Today over 9 out of 10 Americans understand that resistance to 
antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that colds and 
flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an 
antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful 
to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a 
patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually 
develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to 
treatment.
  When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which 
scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism 
amplifies the danger. We have supported increased NIH research funding, 
as well as bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of 
essential drugs, both to address natural and manmade threats. It is so 
counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse 
render them ineffective.
  Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge 
quantities when there is no disease present to treat. I am speaking of 
the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the 
practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the 
effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals.
  Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, 
Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act 
to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is 
estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United 
States are fed to farm animals for nontherapeutic purposes including 
growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary 
conditions.
  In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a 
decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve 
the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to 
decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and 
agriculture.
  Four years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, 
Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of 
Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw 
approvals for

[[Page S3180]]

seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed 
additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that 
antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be 
used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease.
  In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, 
researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 
percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to 
health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections 
arose in the community--not in the health care setting. While must do 
more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of 
these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored.
  Most distressingly, we have seen the USDA issue a fact sheet on the 
recently recognized link between antimicrobial drug use in animals and 
the methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas, MRSA, infections in 
humans. These infections literally threaten life and limb!
  So it should be clear why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again 
introducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. 
Senator Kennedy is truly a champion of public health and understands 
how critical it is to preserve the drugs we must have in our arsenal to 
combat infectious diseases. I am honored to join with him in an effort 
to preserve vital drugs and reduce the development of drug-resistant 
organisms which threaten human health.
  This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically 
important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their 
manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health.
  Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw 
the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in 
food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human 
disease, unless the application is proven harmless within 2 years. The 
same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for 
approval of animal antibiotics.
  This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does 
not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that 
matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food.
  As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new 
drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that 
we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them 
appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 620. A bill to repeal the provision of law that provides automatic 
pay adjustments for Members of Congress; considered and passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 620

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
       (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     December 31, 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 621. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to coordinate 
Federal congenital heart disease research efforts and to improve public 
education and awareness of congenital heart disease, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on legislation I am 
introducing today that relates to congenital heart disease 
research. Congenital heart disease is a rapidly growing national health 
problem. Congenital heart defects are the most common and most deadly 
form of birth defects, affecting nearly 1 percent of births, 
approximately 36,000 a year. In fact, a child is born with a congenital 
heart defect every 15 minutes. A congenital heart defect occurs when 
heart structures are malformed, missing or in the wrong place. There 
are over 30 types of congenital heart defects. These defects cause 
congenital heart disease--cardiovascular problems caused by the birth 
defect.

  The good news is that modern medicine has made major advances in 
treating heart defects in newborns. In 1950, a child born with a 
congenital heart defect only had a 20 percent chance of surviving, but 
today that number has increased to 90 percent. Due to the increase in 
childhood survival rates, the congenital heart disease population 
increases by an estimated 5 percent every year.
  However, the bad news is that there is no cure for congenital heart 
disease. Even survivors of successful childhood intervention face 
lifelong risks, including heart failure, rhythmic disorders, stroke, 
renal dysfunction, and neurocognitive dysfunction. Sadly, the estimated 
life expectancy for those with congenital heart disease is 
significantly lower than for the general population. The life 
expectancy for those born with moderately complex heart defects is 55, 
while the estimated life expectancy for those born with highly complex 
defects is between 35 and 40.
  Unfortunately, fewer than 10 percent of adults living with complex 
congenital heart disease currently receive the cardiac care they need, 
and many don't know that they should have life-long specialized health 
surveillance. Even with access to the best care, living with congenital 
heart disease involves risk. But for people who don't have the medical 
care or who don't have it promptly, the risks of premature death or 
disability are much higher.
  In 2004, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 
working group on congenital heart disease. This group recommended 
developing a research network for clinical research, establishing a 
national database of patients, and creating an outreach education 
program on the need for continued cardiac care.
  Today, I am pleased to introduce the Congenital Heart Futures Act, 
which builds on these recommendations in several ways. First, the 
legislation authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
CDC, to lead a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign 
around congenital heart disease. Next, it authorizes a National 
Congenital Heart Disease Registry at the CDC to track the epidemiology 
of congenital heart disease and creates an advisory committee to 
provide expert information and advice to CDC. And, finally, it 
authorizes congenital heart disease research through NHLBI.
  Despite the prevalence and seriousness of congenital heart disease, 
research, data collection, education, and awareness are limited. The 
Congenital Heart Futures Act will help prevent premature death and 
disability in this rapidly growing but dramatically underserved 
population.
  I say to those who are interested in promoting health research, this 
is an area where we can expend more effort and save more lives. I hope 
my colleagues will take a look at this legislation which we are 
introducing today and join me in cosponsoring it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed int he Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record as follows:

                                 S. 621

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

         This Act may be cited as the ``Congenital Heart Futures 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

         Congress finds the following:
         (1) Congenital heart defects are the most common and most 
     deadly group of birth defects and affect nearly 1 percent of 
     all live

[[Page S3181]]

     births, approximately 36,000 births a year. A child is born 
     with a congenital heart defect every 15 minutes.
         (2) Congenital heart disease is a rapidly-growing 
     national health problem. Childhood survival has risen from 
     below 20 percent in 1950 to more than 90 percent today. Due 
     to the increase in childhood survival, the congenital heart 
     disease population increases by an estimated 5 percent every 
     year.
         (3) Approximately 800,000 children and 1,000,000 adults 
     in the United States are now living with congenital heart 
     disease and require highly-specialized life-long cardiac 
     care.
         (4) There is no cure for congenital heart disease. Even 
     survivors of successful childhood treatment can face life-
     long risks from congenital heart disease, including heart 
     failure, rhythmic disorders, stroke, renal dysfunction, and 
     neurocognitive dysfunction.
         (5) Less than 10 percent of adults living with complex 
     congenital heart disease currently receive recommended 
     cardiac care. Many individuals with congenital heart disease 
     are unaware that they require life-long specialized health 
     surveillance. Delays in care can result in premature death 
     and disability.
         (6) The estimated life expectancy for those with 
     congenital heart disease is significantly lower than for the 
     general population. The life expectancy for those born with 
     moderately complex heart defects is 55, while the estimated 
     life expectancy for those born with highly complex defects is 
     between 35 and 40.
         (7) Despite the prevalence and seriousness of the 
     disease, Federal research, data collection, education, and 
     awareness activities are limited.
         (8) The strategic plan of the National Heart, Lung, and 
     Blood Institute completed in 2007 notes that ``successes over 
     several decades have enabled people with congenital heart 
     diseases to live beyond childhood, but too often inadequate 
     data are available to guide their treatment as adults''.
         (9) The strategic plan for the Division of Cardiovascular 
     Diseases at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 
     completed in 2008, set goals for congenital heart disease 
     research, including understanding the development and genetic 
     basis of congenital heart disease, improving evidence-based 
     care and treatment of children with congenital and acquired 
     pediatric heart disease, and improving evidence-based care 
     and treatment of adults with congenital heart disease.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF CONGENITAL HEART 
                   DISEASE.

         Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``PART S--PROGRAMS RELATING TO CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

     ``SEC. 399HH. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF CONGENITAL 
                   HEART DISEASE.

         ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     and in collaboration with appropriate congenital heart 
     disease patient organizations and professional organizations, 
     may directly or through grants, cooperative agreements, or 
     contracts to eligible entities conduct, support, and promote 
     a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign to 
     increase public and medical community awareness regarding 
     congenital heart disease, including the need for life-long 
     treatment of congenital heart disease survivors.
         ``(b) Eligibility for Grants.--To be eligible to receive 
     a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract under this 
     section, an entity shall be a State or private nonprofit 
     entity and shall submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE REGISTRY.

         Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.), as amended by section 3, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 399II. NATIONAL CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE REGISTRY.

         ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     may--
         ``(1) enhance and expand infrastructure to track the 
     epidemiology of congenital heart disease and to organize such 
     information into a comprehensive, nationwide registry of 
     actual occurrences of congenital heart disease, to be known 
     as the `National Congenital Heart Disease Registry'; or
         ``(2) award a grant to one eligible entity to undertake 
     the activities described in paragraph (1).
         ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Congenital Heart 
     Disease Registry shall be to facilitate further research into 
     the types of health services patients use and to identify 
     possible areas for educational outreach and prevention in 
     accordance with standard practices of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention.
         ``(c) Content.--The Congenital Heart Disease Registry--
         ``(1) may include information concerning the incidence 
     and prevalence of congenital heart disease in the United 
     States;
         ``(2) may be used to collect and store data on congenital 
     heart disease, including data concerning--
         ``(A) demographic factors associated with congenital 
     heart disease, such as age, race, ethnicity, sex, and family 
     history of individuals who are diagnosed with the disease;
         ``(B) risk factors associated with the disease;
         ``(C) causation of the disease;
         ``(D) treatment approaches; and
         ``(E) outcome measures, such that analysis of the outcome 
     measures will allow derivation of evidence-based best 
     practices and guidelines for congenital heart disease 
     patients; and
         ``(3) may ensure the collection and analysis of 
     longitudinal data related to individuals of all ages with 
     congenital heart disease, including infants, young children, 
     adolescents, and adults of all ages, including the elderly.
         ``(d) Coordination With Federal, State, and Local 
     Registries.--In establishing the National Congenital Heart 
     Registry, the Secretary may identify, build upon, expand, and 
     coordinate among existing data and surveillance systems, 
     surveys, registries, and other Federal public health 
     infrastructure, including--
         ``(1) State birth defects surveillance systems;
         ``(2) the State birth defects tracking systems of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
         ``(3) the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects 
     Program; and
         ``(4) the National Birth Defects Prevention Network.
         ``(e) Public Access.--The Congenital Heart Disease 
     Registry shall be made available to the public, including 
     congenital heart disease researchers.
         ``(f) Patient Privacy.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the Congenital Heart Disease Registry is maintained in a 
     manner that complies with the regulations promulgated under 
     section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996.
         ``(g) Eligibility for Grant.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under subsection (a)(2), an entity shall--
         ``(1) be a public or private nonprofit entity with 
     specialized experience in congenital heart disease; and
         ``(2) submit to the Secretary an application at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE.

         Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.), as amended by section 4, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 399JJ. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE.

         ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     may establish an advisory committee, to be known as the 
     `Advisory Committee on Congenital Heart Disease' (referred to 
     in this section as the `Advisory Committee').
         ``(b) Membership.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
     may be appointed by the Secretary, acting through the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, and shall include--
         ``(1) at least one representative from--
         ``(A) the National Institutes of Health;
         ``(B) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
         ``(C) a national patient advocacy organization with 
     experience advocating on behalf of patients living with 
     congenital heart disease;
         ``(2) at least one epidemiologist who has experience 
     working with data registries;
         ``(3) clinicians, including--
         ``(A) at least one with experience diagnosing or treating 
     congenital heart disease; and
         ``(B) at least one with experience using medical data 
     registries; and
         ``(4) at least one publicly- or privately-funded 
     researcher with experience researching congenital heart 
     disease.
         ``(c) Duties.--The Advisory Committee may review 
     information and make recommendations to the Secretary 
     concerning--
         ``(1) the development and maintenance of the National 
     Congenital Heart Disease Registry established under section 
     399II;
         ``(2) the type of data to be collected and stored in the 
     National Congenital Heart Disease Registry;
         ``(3) the manner in which such data is to be collected;
         ``(4) the use and availability of such data, including 
     guidelines for such use; and
         ``(5) other matters, as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
         ``(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the Advisory Committee is established and annually 
     thereafter, the Advisory Committee shall submit a report to 
     the Secretary concerning the information described in 
     subsection (c), including recommendations with respect to the 
     results of the Advisory Committee's review of such 
     information.''.

     SEC. 6. CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE RESEARCH.

         Subpart 2 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285b et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 425. CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE.

         ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute may 
     expand, intensify, and coordinate research and related 
     activities of the Institute with respect to congenital heart 
     disease, which may include congenital heart disease research 
     with respect to--
         ``(1) causation of congenital heart disease, including 
     genetic causes;

[[Page S3182]]

         ``(2) long-term outcomes in individuals with congenital 
     heart disease, including infants, children, teenagers, 
     adults, and elderly individuals;
         ``(3) diagnosis, treatment, and prevention;
         ``(4) studies using longitudinal data and retrospective 
     analysis to identify effective treatments and outcomes for 
     individuals with congenital heart disease; and
         ``(5) identifying barriers to life-long care for 
     individuals with congenital heart disease.
         ``(b) Coordination of Research Activities.--The Director 
     of the Institute may coordinate research efforts related to 
     congenital heart disease among multiple research institutions 
     and may develop research networks.
         ``(c) Minority and Medically Underserved Communities.--In 
     carrying out the activities described in this section, the 
     Director of the Institute shall consider the application of 
     such research and other activities to minority and medically 
     underserved communities.''.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

         There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     amendments made by this Act such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Collins, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Martinez):
  S. 622. A bill to ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed on 
ethanol and tax credits provided on ethanol; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported 
Ethanol Parity Act of 2009.
  This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Bingaman, Collins, 
Cantwell and Martinez.
  First, let me explain what this bill does.
  The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the 
secondary ethanol import tariff, so that tariffs on ethanol are no 
higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline.
  This would restore parity between the real tariff faced by imported 
gasoline and ethanol, which currently compete.
  This legislation is necessary because last year's Farm Bill shifted 
the function of ethanol tariffs.
  Historically, there has been relative parity between ethanol 
subsidies and ethanol tariffs. The tariffs served to ``offset'' 
domestic subsidies for ethanol use, thereby preventing imported ethanol 
from benefiting from domestic subsidies.
  But after passage of the Farm Bill, these tariffs began to serve as a 
real barrier to trade.
  The Farm Bill maintained the primary 2.5 percent tariff and extended 
the secondary tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, creating a 
combined tariff of $0.56 to $0.59 per gallon, depending on the sale 
price. But the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy that 
these tariffs are intended to offset to $0.45 per gallon.
  This disparity means that an ethanol importer pays more tariff than 
he gets back in subsidy, and parity has been lost.
  Specifically, an ethanol importer pays $0.11 to $0.14 per gallon of 
tariff to the U.S. Treasury that he never gets back from the ethanol 
subsidy.
  Ethanol is therefore disadvantaged when it competes directly with 
other imported transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel.
  It increases the cost of gasoline in the United States by making 
ethanol more expensive.
  It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. 
Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in 
today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than 
gasoline.
  It taxes imported transportation fuel from our friends in Brazil, 
India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter 
the United States tax free.
  It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through 
which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries 
that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same 
crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade 
between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.
  It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should 
be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it 
comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 
percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must 
diversify supply.
  Bottom Line: Until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax 
the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.
  This legislation responds to the Tariff's defenders.
  In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff 
entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill 
which would have eliminated the tariff.
  The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I 
believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.
  The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon secondary tariff on ethanol 
imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to 
offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, 
whether produced domestically or internationally.
  They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American 
farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers. For 
instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee 
stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates 
as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically 
produced and imported ethanol.''
  On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press 
release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax 
incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they 
blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''
  In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition 
for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn 
Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the 
National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated 
that the blender tax credit is available to refiners regardless of 
whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. 
taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed 
an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a 
tariff.
  In 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director 
asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry 
but the U.S. taxpayer.''
  I ask tariff advocates to either support this legislation or explain 
how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed 
to offset.
  Bottom Line: Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to 
overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face. The 
tariffs cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.56-$0.59 per gallon if 
its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it 
should be reduced.
  Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we 
face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less 
expensive for the United States to combat global warming.
  Here is how: the fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of 
the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. In California, it 
accounts for 40 percent of all of our emissions. To reduce this impact, 
we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the 
lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.
  For this reason, in the 110th Congress I introduced the Clean Fuels 
and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
  The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would 
require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to 
reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of 
energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 
2020.
  This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007, in which Congress requires oil companies to use 
an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 
50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.
  Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the 
lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for 
the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of 
transportation fuel.

[[Page S3183]]

  The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on 
production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact 
the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel 
requirements under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks 
as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to 
current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the 
University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the 
energy content in corn ethanol, is renewable. The rest is primarily 
natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.
  The most recent research compiled by the California Air Resources 
Board concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of 
imported sugar based ethanol are 73 percent lower than gasoline, while 
the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol 
from the Midwest are 31 percent lower than gasoline.
  Even when land use change is factored in, the lifecycle greenhouse 
gas emissions of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is the single least 
emitting fuel option available for today's vehicles. It is only 
surpassed on an emissions basis by electric and fuel cell cars, which 
are unfortunately at least a few years away from widespread adoption.
  Biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we 
should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, if we import crude oil 
and gasoline tariff free.
  This legislation accomplishes two goals: it corrects the Farm Bill's 
mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate 
friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive 
advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we 
are trying to combat climate change.
  It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol 
subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.
  I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 622

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Imported Ethanol Parity 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ETHANOL TAX PARITY.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and semiannually thereafter, the President shall 
     reduce the temporary duty imposed on ethanol under subheading 
     9901.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States by an amount equal to the reduction in any Federal 
     income or excise tax credit under section 40(h), 6426(b), or 
     6427(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and take any 
     other action necessary to ensure that the combined temporary 
     duty imposed on ethanol under such subheading 9901.00.50 and 
     any other duty imposed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States is equal to, or lower than, any Federal 
     income or excise tax credit applicable to ethanol under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 623. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Service Act, and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit preexisting condition 
exclusions in group health plans and in health insurance coverage in 
the group and individual markets; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pre-
existing Condition Patient Protection Act, legislation to provide 
crucial protections for individuals with chronic and preexisting 
conditions. Unfair insurance market rules, including those which allow 
insurance companies to exclude coverage for preexisting health 
conditions, have forced thousands of American families into dire 
medical and financial situations. Addressing this issue is a priority 
of the President and should be a priority for Congress.
  As we begin to consider comprehensive health reform, including 
significant coverage expansions for the uninsured, this reform should 
also address the gaps in coverage for the 25 million Americans who are 
underinsured often due to their preexisting condition. Health insurance 
coverage should be meaningful and available when people need it.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that 
nearly 45 percent of Americans--or 133 million people--have at least 
one chronic condition. Furthermore, a report recently published in the 
Annals of Internal Medicine found that nearly one-third of all 
uninsured Americans in 2004 had received a chronic condition diagnosis. 
Early intervention and adequate treatment for those with chronic 
conditions is vital. Unfortunately, preexisting condition exclusions 
are often a barrier for individuals seeking access to comprehensive 
health insurance coverage.
  Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996, HIPAA, P.L. 104-191, over 10 years ago with the objective 
of protecting Americans from interruptions in health insurance coverage 
resulting from job changes or other life transitions. HIPAA provides 
this protection by restricting when private insurers can use 
preexisting conditions to limit health insurance coverage. HIPAA has 
been successful, and many individuals have come to rely on its 
protections. However, after more than a decade, certain gaps in HIPAA's 
protection have become apparent.
  First, individuals who have been without health insurance coverage 
for 63 days or more are at risk of being permanently uninsurable. This 
is particularly true of individuals with preexisting conditions, 
because a 63-day gap in coverage eliminates any prior creditable 
coverage. If an employee cannot demonstrate that he or she had prior 
creditable and continuous coverage, an employer can exclude coverage 
for preexisting conditions for up to 12 months.
  Second, employers can restrict coverage for preexisting conditions to 
otherwise qualified employees based on a 6-month ``look-back'' period. 
This means that an employer may use medical recommendations, diagnoses, 
and treatments within the most recent six months to deny health 
coverage for a ``preexisting condition'' for up to 12 months.
  Third, the protections offered to individuals moving into a group 
health plan, or moving into the individual insurance market from a 
group plan, are not available to individuals attempting to shop around 
for policies within individual market. As a result, individuals who 
purchase policies in the nongroup market and never have a gap in 
coverage still have no protection against the preexisting condition 
exclusions that insurers may choose to impose. In most cases, there is 
no limit on the length of time an insurer can deny coverage under an 
individual insurance policy for a preexisting condition. An individual 
with a chronic condition who is buying coverage in the individual 
market today is likely to pay a high deductible, have a large monthly 
premium, and have the very illness they need coverage for written out 
of their policy.
  The Pre-existing Condition Patient Protection Act I am introducing 
today would address all three of these gaps in the current HIPAA law by 
eliminating preexisting condition exclusions in every single market. 
While this change is not the only insurance market reform necessary, it 
is a great step forward in improving the health coverage available to 
the 133 million Americans living with at least one chronic condition.
  Access to treatment is critical for these individuals, and a 
permanent fix to the law regarding coverage exclusions is crucial for 
our Nation in reforming our health care system. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. The time for 
action is now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 623

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preexisting Condition 
     Patient Protection Act of 2009''.

[[Page S3184]]

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the United States Census Bureau, 
     45,700,000 individuals were uninsured in 2007.
       (2) According to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, 
     the number of underinsured adults ages 19 to 64 has jumped 60 
     percent over the last 4 years, from 16,000,000 in 2003 to 
     25,000,000 in 2007.
       (3) According to the Center for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, approximately 45 percent of Americans have at 
     least 1 chronic condition.
       (4) Forty-four States currently allow insurance companies 
     to deny coverage for, limit coverage for, or charge increased 
     premiums for a pre-existing condition.
       (5) Over 26,000,000 individuals were enrolled in private 
     individual market health plans in 2007. Under the amendments 
     made by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
     Act of 1996, these individuals have no protections against 
     pre-existing condition exclusions or waiting periods.
       (6) When an individual has a 63-day gap in health insurance 
     coverage, pre-existing condition exclusions, such as limiting 
     coverage, can be placed on them when they become insured 
     under a new health insurance policy.
       (7) Eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions for all 
     individuals is a vital safeguard to ensuring all Americans 
     have access to health care when in need.
       (8) According to a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School 
     of Public Health public opinion poll, 58 percent of Americans 
     strongly favor the Federal Government requiring health 
     insurance companies to cover anyone who applies for health 
     coverage, even if they have a prior illness.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS UNDER 
                   GROUP HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) Application Under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974.--
       (1) Elimination of preexisting condition exclusions.--
     Section 701 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181) is amended--
       (A) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
     ``ELIMINATION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS'';
       (B) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     with respect to a participant or beneficiary--
       ``(1) may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion; 
     and
       ``(2) in the case of a group health plan that offers 
     medical care through health insurance coverage offered by a 
     health maintenance organization, may not provide for an 
     affiliation period with respect to coverage through the 
     organization.'';
       (C) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Affiliation period.--The term `affiliation period' 
     means a period which, under the terms of the health insurance 
     coverage offered by the health maintenance organization, must 
     expire before the health insurance coverage becomes 
     effective.'';
       (D) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g); and
       (E) by redesignating subsection (f) (relating to special 
     enrollment periods) as subsection (c).
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item in the table of contents 
     of such Act relating to section 701 is amended to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 701. Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions.''.

       (b) Application Under Public Health Service Act.--
       (1) Elimination of preexisting condition exclusions.--
     Section 2701 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300gg) is amended--
       (A) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
     ``ELIMINATION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS'';
       (B) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     with respect to a participant or beneficiary--
       ``(1) may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion; 
     and
       ``(2) in the case of a group health plan that offers 
     medical care through health insurance coverage offered by a 
     health maintenance organization, may not provide for an 
     affiliation period with respect to coverage through the 
     organization.'';
       (C) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Affiliation period.--The term `affiliation period' 
     means a period which, under the terms of the health insurance 
     coverage offered by the health maintenance organization, must 
     expire before the health insurance coverage becomes 
     effective.'';
       (D) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g); and
       (E) by redesignating subsection (f) (relating to special 
     enrollment periods) as subsection (c).
       (2) Technical amendments relating to employer size.--
     Section 2711 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Small'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``(c) through (f)'' and inserting ``(b) 
     through (d)'';
       (II) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``small''; and
       (III) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``small employer (as 
     defined in section 2791(e)(4))'' and inserting ``employer''; 
     and

       (iii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking ``small'' each place it appears; and
       (II) by striking ``coverage to a'' and inserting ``coverage 
     to an'';

       (B) by striking subsection (b);
       (C) in subsections (c), (d), and (e), by striking ``small'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (D) by striking subsection (f).
       (c) Application Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
       (1) Elimination of preexisting condition exclusions.--
     Section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (A) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
     ``ELIMINATION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS'';
       (B) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--A group health plan with respect to a 
     participant or beneficiary may not impose any pre-existing 
     condition exclusion.'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (3) of subsection (b);
       (D) by striking subsections (c), (d), and (e); and
       (E) by redesignating subsection (f) (relating to special 
     enrollment periods) as subsection (c).
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item in the table of sections 
     of chapter 100 of such Code relating to section 9801 is 
     amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 9801. Elimination of preexisting condition exclusions.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     group health plans for plan years beginning after the end of 
     the 12th calendar month following the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Special rule for collective bargaining agreements.--In 
     the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to one or 
     more collective bargaining agreements between employee 
     representatives and one or more employers ratified before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the amendments made by 
     this section shall not apply to plan years beginning before 
     the later of--
       (A) the date on which the last of the collective bargaining 
     agreements relating to the plan terminates (determined 
     without regard to any extension thereof agreed to after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act); or
       (B) the date that is after the end of the 12th calendar 
     month following the date of enactment of this Act.

     For purposes of subparagraph (A), any plan amendment made 
     pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the 
     plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any 
     requirement added by the amendments made by this section 
     shall not be treated as a termination of such collective 
     bargaining agreement.

     SEC. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2741 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41) is amended by striking subsection 
     (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Guaranteed issue.--Subject to the succeeding 
     subsections of this section, each health insurance issuer 
     that offers health insurance coverage (as defined in section 
     2791(b)(1)) in the individual market to individuals residing 
     in an area may not, with respect to an eligible individual 
     (as defined in subsection (b)) residing in the area who 
     desires to enroll in individual health insurance coverage--
       ``(A) decline to offer such coverage to, or deny enrollment 
     of, such individual; or
       ``(B) impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as 
     defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A)) with respect to such 
     coverage.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage 
     offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the 
     individual market after the end of the 12th calendar month 
     following the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. TRANSPARENCY IN CLAIMS DATA.

       (a) Report on Adverse Selection.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report 
     concerning the occurrence of adverse selection as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act. Such report shall be based on the 
     data reported under subsection (b).
       (b) Mandatory Reporting.--A health insurance issuer to 
     which this Act applies, shall upon the request of the 
     Secretary, submit to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, data concerning--
       (1) the number of new enrollees in health plans offered by 
     the issuer during the year involved;
       (2) the number of enrollees who re-enrolled in health plans 
     offered by the issuer during the year involved;
       (3) the demographic characteristics of enrollees;
       (4) the number, nature, and dollar amount of claims made by 
     enrollees during the year involved;
       (5) the number of enrollees who disenrolled or declined to 
     be reenrolled during the year involved; and
       (6) any other information determined appropriate by such 
     Secretary.

[[Page S3185]]

       (c) Enforcement.--Part C of title XXVII of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2793. PROVISION OF INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall require that group 
     health plans and health insurance issuers to which this Act 
     applies provide data to the Secretary, at such times and in 
     such manner as the Secretary may require, in order to permit 
     the Secretary to monitor compliance with the requirements of 
     this Act (including requirements imposed under the 
     Preexisting Condition Patient Protection Act of 2009 (and the 
     amendment made by that Act)).
       ``(b) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan or health insurance 
     issuer that fails to provide information as required under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil money penalty 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Amount of penalty.--
       ``(A) In general.--The maximum amount of penalty imposed 
     under this paragraph is $100 per covered life for each day 
     that the plan or issuer fails to comply with this section.
       ``(B) Consideration in imposition.--In determining the 
     amount of any penalty to be assessed under this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of 
     compliance of the entity being assessed with this section and 
     the gravity of the violation.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Government Accountability Office shall submit 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report 
     concerning the impact of this Act and other Federal laws 
     relating to the regulation of health insurance and its effect 
     on the affordability of health insurance coverage for 
     individuals in all insurance markets and a description of the 
     effect of this Act on the expansion of coverage and 
     reductions in the number of uninsured and underinsured.
                                 ______
                                 

       By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Corker, and Mrs. Murray):

  S. 624. A bill to provide 100,000,000 people with first-time access 
to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015 by 
improving the capacity of the United States Government to fully 
implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Later this week we will mark World Water Day. It is an 
important reminder of the many challenges we continue to face in 
providing clean water and sanitation to the world's poor.
  We have made progress in recent years, but around the world today, 
nearly 1 billion people continue to lack access to clean, safe water. 
More than 2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Most of 
these people live on less than $2 a day. They are the voiceless and the 
powerless of the world.
  That is why today, Senator Bob Corker and Senator Patty Murray and I 
are introducing the Paul Simon Water for the World Act in the United 
States Senate. Congressmen Blumenauer and Payne have introduced the 
same bill in the House.
  Our bill will reestablish U.S. leadership on one of the defining 
challenges of the 21st century: water.
  The goal is to reach an additional 100 million of the world's poorest 
people with sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic 
sanitation by 2015. This would represent the largest single commitment 
of any donor country to meeting the Millennium Development Goal on 
water, which is to reduce by half the proportion of people without 
access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015.
  The bill targets aid to areas with the greatest need. It helps build 
the capacity of poor nations to meet their own water and sanitation 
challenges. It supports research on clean water technologies and 
regional partnerships to find solutions to shared water challenges.
  The bill provides technical assistance--best practices, credit 
authorities, and training--to help countries expand access to clean 
water and sanitation. Our development experts will design the 
assistance based on local needs.
  The Water for the World Act also designates within the State 
Department a high-level representative to ensure that water receives 
priority attention in our foreign policy, and establishes a new Office 
of Water at USAID to implement development assistance efforts related 
to water.
  We ought to be assigning some of our best minds to solve the global 
water challenge. Right now, however, we don't have the staff at USAID 
to meet our goals on water or any other urgent development need.
  At a time when it is more important than ever to win the hearts and 
minds of those around the world, as well as to address the challenges 
of fragile and failed states, our top development agency is suffering 
from an inexcusable shortage of expert staff.
  In the 1960s, USAID had more than 5,000 Foreign Service Officers; 
today, when the needs are greater than ever, it has just over 1,000.
  To correct this imbalance and help rebuild our smart power, I 
recently introduced a bill that would triple the number of USAID 
Foreign Service Officers by 2012. It's called the Increasing America's 
Development Capacity Act, and it's an essential part of our efforts to 
rebuild America's smart power role in the world--on food security, 
health, economic development, and yes, water.
  I owe my passion on water to my friend and mentor, the man whose seat 
I now occupy in the U.S. Senate: the late Senator Paul Simon.
  He was a profoundly good and wise man. He was also a visionary. He 
saw connections that many people missed. He saw answers to problems 
before most people even saw the problems.
  As many of you know, solving the global water crisis was his last 
great campaign. In 1998, he wrote a book called ``Tapped Out: The 
Coming World Crisis in Water and What We Can Do About It.''
  Paul Simon would go anywhere, and talk to anyone, to try to get 
people and governments to take the global water crisis seriously. In 
the last year of his life, he traveled to Israel to moderate a panel 
between the Israeli and Palestinian water commissioners. He said that 
he and most of the people in the audience--were amazed that the two 
commissioners agreed on almost everything.
  But when he looked in the newspapers the next day, there was nothing 
about the meeting. Not a word. He said that was ``because nobody was 
shouting at each other.'' That's part of the challenge.
  The global water crisis is a quiet killer. In the developing world, 
water-related diseases claim the lives of 5,000 children every day. 
Diarrhea alone kills nearly 2 million children under the age of 5 each 
year. As CSIS's ``Global Water Futures'' report hauntingly points out, 
that is the equivalent of all the children under age 5 in New York and 
London combined.
  Mothers who fear the deaths of their children bear more, in a 
desperate race against the odds. The lack of clean water enslaves poor 
women in other ways, as well. In many poor nations, women and girls 
walk two or three hours or more each way, every day, to collect water 
that is often dirty and unsafe.
  The UN estimates that women and girls in Sub-Saharan Africa spend a 
total of 40 billion working hours each year collecting water. That is 
equivalent to all of the hours worked in France in a year.
  A developing economy cannot grow if its people are too busy 
collecting water, or too sick from drinking unsafe water, to work or to 
go to school.
  What Senator Simon knew 10 years ago, and the rest of us are slowly 
coming around to see, is that we can't begin to solve the problems of 
global hunger and poverty without addressing the global water crisis.
  And water is not simply a humanitarian challenge. It is a threat to 
global stability and the global economy.
  Last June, Goldman Sachs held a meeting to assess the top five risks 
facing the world economy. Resource scarcity--including competition for 
water, food and energy--was at the top of the list.
  Fortune magazine recently predicted that the global water crisis will 
be as serious in the 21st century as the oil crises were in the 20th, 
potentially leading to war.
  Paul Simon understood the potential for conflicts over dwindling 
supplies of clean water. It alarmed him. He used to say, ``Nations go 
to war for oil, but there are substitutes for oil. There are no 
substitutes for water.'' We see that in the roots of the conflict in 
Darfur.
  I have seen the challenge of water in so many of my recent trips 
abroad.
  Two years ago I travelled to Jordan after a trip to Iraq. I went to 
talk with people there about the impact of the

[[Page S3186]]

war in Iraq on one of our most important allies in the region.
  The Jordanian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, Ms. 
Suhair-al-Ali, told me that between 600,000 and 700,000 Iraqi refugees 
were living in Jordan at that time. That was equivalent to 10 percent 
of Jordan's entire population. For us in the U.S., that would be the 
equivalent of 30 million refugees.
  The massive influx of Iraqi refugees had strained the ability of 
Jordan's government to provide basic services almost to the breaking 
point. What did the minister identify as one of Jordan's biggest 
problems? Water.
  It is not just Jordan. Water is central to the fate of the entire 
Middle East.
  In his book, Paul Simon quoted former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak 
Rabin as saying, ``If we solve every other problem in the Middle East 
but do not satisfactorily resolve the water problem, our region will 
explode. Peace will not be possible.''
  You do not have to travel halfway around the world to see the 
devastating consequences of lack of access to clean water.
  A few months ago I traveled to Haiti. This was my second visit and it 
is always a shock. A 90-minute plane ride from Miami takes you to 
another world.
  There are no public sewage treatment or disposal systems anywhere in 
the country. Even in the capital, Port-au-Prince, a city of 2 million 
people, the drainage canals are choked with garbage and sewage.
  It is no wonder that Haiti has the highest infant and child mortality 
rate in the Western Hemisphere. One-third of Haiti's children do not 
live to see the age of 5. The leading killer? Water-borne diseases: 
hepatitis, thyphoid and diarrhea.
  While there, I visited a rural health clinic run by a group called 
Partners in Health, co-founded by Dr. Paul Farmer. Dr. Farmer is a 
wonderful man who has improved the lives of so many, from Rwanda to 
Haiti.
  He showed me a water purification kit that his clinic gives to 
nursing mothers with HIV/AIDS. This allows them to make formula for 
their babies and not transmit the virus through breastfeeding. It is 
simple, inexpensive, and life-saving.
  Some years ago I visited Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in 
Latin America. Bolivia is an example of what awaits many countries' 
water supplies because of global warming.
  Much of its population relies on melting glaciers for its water. But 
because of climate change the glaciers are not being replenished and 
some are already disappearing. These trends are happening from the 
snows of Mount Kilimanjaro to the Alps to the Himalayas.
  How will the world respond to the water needs such as Bolivia and 
others who rely on glaciers for their water supplies?
  I recently returned from a visit to Cyprus. The island has been 
divided now for more than 30 years. The leaders on both sides are 
engaged in brave and important discussions to reunify the island. Amid 
this hopeful progress toward peace, another problem plagues this 
island--water.
  The groundwater in Cyprus is being depleted too quickly, often for 
agriculture, and it is being replenished too often with salt water that 
creeps into the water table. Global warming is causing rainfall to 
decrease.
  In recognition of the vast water challenges we face around the world, 
two years after Paul Simon died, Congress passed the Paul Simon Water 
for the Poor Act. President Bush signed it into law in December 2005.
  It represents the first time the U.S. has codified our commitment to 
any of the Millennium Development Goals. The Paul Simon Water for the 
Poor Act makes safe water and basic sanitation a top priority for all 
U.S. foreign assistance.
  In 2007 alone, it helped provide nearly 2 million people in over 30 
countries with access to a better source of drinking water, and more 
than 1.5 million people with better sanitation.
  The Water for the Poor Act is saving lives, but its impact could be 
greater. The Paul Simon Water for the World Act will help us expand 
these efforts to make a profound and sustainable difference in the 
lives of the world's poor.
  As we prepare to mark World Water Day this Sunday, let us recommit 
ourselves to a new effort on safe water and sanitation.
  Throughout history, civilized nations have put aside political 
differences to address compelling issues of life and survival. Our 
generation owes the world nothing less.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 624

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senator Paul Simon Water for 
     the World Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109-121)--
       (A) makes access to safe water and sanitation for 
     developing countries a specific policy objective of United 
     States foreign assistance programs;
       (B) requires the Secretary of State to--
       (i) develop a strategy to elevate the role of water and 
     sanitation policy; and
       (ii) improve the effectiveness of United States assistance 
     programs undertaken in support of that strategy;
       (C) codifies Target 10 of the United Nations Millennium 
     Development Goals; and
       (D) seeks to reduce by half between 1990 (the baseline 
     year) and 2015--
       (i) the proportion of people who are unable to reach or 
     afford safe drinking water; and
       (ii) the proportion of people without access to basic 
     sanitation.
       (2) On December 20, 2006, the United Nations General 
     Assembly, in GA Resolution 61/192, declared 2008 as the 
     International Year of Sanitation, in recognition of the 
     impact of sanitation on public health, poverty reduction, 
     economic and social development, and the environment.
       (3) On August 1, 2008, Congress passed H. Con. Res. 318, 
     which--
       (A) supports the goals and ideals of the International Year 
     of Sanitation; and
       (B) recognizes the importance of sanitation on public 
     health, poverty reduction, economic and social development, 
     and the environment.
       (4) While progress is being made on safe water and 
     sanitation efforts--
       (A) more than 884,000,000 people throughout the world lack 
     access to safe drinking water; and
       (B) 2 of every 5 people in the world do not have access to 
     basic sanitation services.
       (5) The health consequences of unsafe drinking water and 
     poor sanitation are significant, accounting for--
       (A) nearly 10 percent of the global burden of disease; and
       (B) more than 2,000,000 deaths each year.
       (6) The effects of climate change are expected to produce 
     severe consequences for water availability and resource 
     management in the future, with 2,800,000,000 people in more 
     than 48 countries expected to face severe and chronic water 
     shortages by 2025.
       (7) According to the November 2008 report entitled, 
     ``Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World'', the National 
     Intelligence Council expects rapid urbanization and future 
     population growth to exacerbate already limited access to 
     water, particularly in agriculture-based economies.
       (8) A 2009 report published in the Proceedings of the 
     National Academy of Sciences projects that the effects of 
     climate change will produce long-term droughts and raise sea 
     levels for the next 1,000 years, regardless of future efforts 
     to combat climate change.
       (9) According to the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 
     commissioned by the United Nations, more than \1/5\ of the 
     world population relies on freshwater that is either polluted 
     or excessively withdrawn.
       (10) The impact of water scarcity on conflict and 
     instability is evident in many parts of the world, including 
     the Darfur region of Sudan, where demand for water resources 
     has contributed to armed conflict between nomadic ethnic 
     groups and local farming communities.
       (11) In order to further the United States contribution to 
     safe water and sanitation efforts, it is necessary to--
       (A) expand foreign assistance capacity to address the 
     challenges described in this section; and
       (B) represent issues related to water and sanitation at the 
     highest levels of United States foreign assistance and 
     diplomatic deliberations, including those related to issues 
     of global health, food security, the environment, global 
     warming, and maternal and child mortality.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the United States should 
     lead a global effort to bring sustainable access to clean 
     water and sanitation to poor people throughout the world.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to provide first-time access to safe water and 
     sanitation, on a sustainable basis, for 100,000,000 people in 
     high priority countries (as designated under section 6(f) of 
     the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152h note) by 2015; and

[[Page S3187]]

       (2) to enhance the capacity of the United States Government 
     to fully implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor 
     Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121).

     SEC. 5. DEVELOPING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CAPACITY.

       Section 135 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152h) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Office of Water.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes of 
     subsection (a), the Administrator of the United States Agency 
     for International Development shall establish the Office of 
     Water within the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and 
     Trade.
       ``(2) Leadership.--The Office of Water shall be headed by a 
     Director for Safe Water and Sanitation, who shall report 
     directly to the Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for 
     Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade.
       ``(3) Duties.--The Director shall--
       ``(A) implement this section and the Senator Paul Simon 
     Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121);
       ``(B) develop and implement country-specific water 
     strategies and expertise, in collaboration with appropriate 
     United States Agency for International Development Mission 
     Directors, to meet the goal of providing 100,000,000 
     additional people with sustainable access to safe water and 
     sanitation by 2015; and
       ``(C) place primary emphasis on providing safe, affordable, 
     and sustainable drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in a 
     manner that--
       ``(i) is consistent with sound water resource management 
     principles; and
       ``(ii) utilizes such approaches as direct service 
     provision, capacity building, institutional strengthening, 
     regulatory reform, and partnership collaboration.
       ``(4) Capacity.--The Director may utilize interagency 
     details or partnerships with universities, civil society, and 
     the private sector, as needed, to strengthen implementation 
     capacity.
       ``(f) Special Coordinator for International Water.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To increase the capacity of the 
     Department of State to address international issues regarding 
     safe water, sanitation, integrated river basin management, 
     and other international water programs, the Secretary of 
     State shall establish a Special Coordinator for International 
     Water (referred to in this subsection as the `Special 
     Coordinator'), who shall report to the Under Secretary for 
     Democracy and Global Affairs.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Special Coordinator shall--
       ``(A) oversee and coordinate the diplomatic policy of the 
     United States Government with respect to global freshwater 
     issues, including interagency coordination related to--
       ``(i) sustainable access to safe drinking water, 
     sanitation, and hygiene;
       ``(ii) integrated river basin and watershed management;
       ``(iii) transboundary conflict;
       ``(iv) agricultural and urban productivity of water 
     resources;
       ``(v) disaster recovery, response, and rebuilding,
       ``(vi) pollution mitigation; and
       ``(vii) adaptation to hydrologic change due to climate 
     variability; and
       ``(B) ensure that international freshwater issues are 
     represented--
       ``(i) within the United States Government; and
       ``(ii) in key diplomatic, development, and scientific 
     efforts with other nations and multilateral organizations.
       ``(3) Staff.--The Special Coordinator is authorized to hire 
     a limited number of staff to carry out the duties described 
     in paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 6. SAFE WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE STRATEGY.

       Section 6 of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act 
     of 2005 (22 U.S.C. 2152h note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In developing the program activities needed to implement 
     the strategy, the Secretary shall consider the results of the 
     assessment described in subsection (e)(9).''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) an assessment of all United States Government foreign 
     assistance allocated to the drinking water and sanitation 
     sector during the 3 previous fiscal years, across all United 
     States Government agencies and programs, including an 
     assessment of the extent to which the United States 
     Government's efforts are reaching the goal of providing 
     first-time access to safe water and sanitation on a 
     sustainable basis for 100,000,000 people in high priority 
     countries;
       ``(8) recommendations on what the United States Government 
     would need to do to achieve the goals referred to in 
     paragraph (7), in support of the United Nation's Millennium 
     Development Goal on access to safe drinking water; and
       ``(9) an assessment of best practices for mobilizing and 
     leveraging the financial and technical capacity of business, 
     governments, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society 
     in forming public-private partnerships that measurably 
     increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation.''.

     SEC. 7. DEVELOPING LOCAL CAPACITY.

       The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109-121) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 9, 10, and 11 as sections 10, 
     11, and 12, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 8 the following:

     ``SEC. 9. WATER AND SANITATION INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY-
                   BUILDING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development (referred to in this section as the `Secretary' 
     and the `Administrator', respectively), in consultation with 
     host country institutions, the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, the Department of Agriculture, and other 
     agencies, as appropriate, shall establish, in every high 
     priority country, a program to build the capacity of host 
     country institutions and officials responsible for water and 
     sanitation in countries that receive assistance under section 
     135 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including training 
     at appropriate levels, to--
       ``(A) provide affordable, equitable, and sustainable access 
     to safe drinking water and sanitation;
       ``(B) educate the populations of such countries about the 
     dangers of unsafe drinking water and lack of proper 
     sanitation; and
       ``(C) encourage behavior change to reduce individuals' risk 
     of disease from unsafe drinking water and lack of proper 
     sanitation and hygiene.
       ``(2) Coordination.--The programs established under 
     subsection (a) shall be coordinated in each country by the 
     lead country water manager designated in subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Expansion.--The Secretary and the Administrator may 
     establish the program described in this section in additional 
     countries if the receipt of such capacity building would be 
     beneficial for promoting access to safe drinking water and 
     sanitation, with due consideration given to good governance.
       ``(4) Capacity.--The Secretary and the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall designate staff with appropriate expertise to 
     carry out the strategy developed under section 4; and
       ``(B) may utilize, as needed, interagency details or 
     partnerships with universities, civil society, and the 
     private sector to strengthen implementation capacity.
       ``(b) Designation.--The United States Agency for 
     International Development Mission Director for each country 
     receiving a `high priority' designation under section 6(f) 
     and for each region containing a country receiving such 
     designation shall--
       ``(1) designate safe drinking water and sanitation as a 
     strategic objective;
       ``(2) appoint an employee of the United States Agency for 
     International Development as in-country water and sanitation 
     manager to coordinate the in-country implementation of this 
     Act and section 135 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152h) with host country officials at various levels 
     of government responsible for water and sanitation, the 
     Department of State, and other relevant United States 
     Government agencies; and
       ``(3) coordinate with the Development Credit Authority and 
     the Global Development Alliance to further the purposes of 
     this Act.''.

     SEC. 8. OTHER ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.

       Section 135(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2152h(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) foster global cooperation on research and technology 
     development, including regional partnerships among water 
     experts to address safe drinking water, sanitation, water 
     resource management, and other water-related issues;
       ``(6) establish regional and cross-border cooperative 
     activities between scientists and specialists that work to 
     share technologies and best practices, mitigate shared water 
     challenges, foster international cooperation, and defuse 
     cross-border tensions;
       ``(7) provide grants through the United States Agency for 
     International Development to foster the development, 
     dissemination, and increased and consistent use of low cost 
     and sustainable technologies, such as household water 
     treatment, hand washing stations, and latrines, for providing 
     safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene that are 
     suitable for use in high priority countries, particularly in 
     places with limited resources and infrastructure;
       ``(8) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, Department of Agriculture, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and other agencies, as appropriate, conduct 
     formative and operational research and monitor and evaluate 
     the effectiveness of programs that provide safe drinking 
     water and sanitation; and
       ``(9) integrate efforts to promote safe drinking water, 
     sanitation and hygiene with existing foreign assistance 
     programs, as appropriate, including activities focused on 
     HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, maternal and child health, 
     food security, and nutritional support.''.

[[Page S3188]]

     SEC. 9. UPDATED REPORT REGARDING WATER FOR PEACE AND 
                   SECURITY.

       Section 11(b) of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor 
     Act of 2005, as redesignated by section 7, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``The report submitted under 
     this subsection shall include an assessment of current and 
     likely future political tensions over water sources and 
     multidisciplinary assessment of the expected impacts of 
     global climate change on water supplies in 10, 25, and 50 
     years.''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2009 and for each subsequent fiscal year such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act, pursuant to the criteria set 
     forth in the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 
     2005 (Public Law 109-121).
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) General water resource management activities.--Up to 20 
     percent of the amounts appropriated to implement this Act may 
     be used to support general water resource management 
     activities that improve countries' overall water sources.
       (2) Other activities.--Any amounts appropriated to 
     implement this Act that are not used to carry out the 
     activities described in paragraph (1) shall be allocated for 
     activities related to safe drinking water, sanitation, and 
     hygiene.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 626. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower 
Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the 
National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. 
This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish 
along the Lower Mississippi River Area as a unit of the National Park 
System. I cannot think of a more timely occasion to reintroduce this 
bill as Secretary Salazar is expected to be touring southeast Louisiana 
tomorrow.
  The first step to becoming a unit in the National Park System is to 
conduct a special resources study to determine whether an area 
possesses nationally significant natural, cultural, or recreational 
resources to be eligible for favorable consideration. This is exactly 
what my bill does--it asks the Department of the Interior to take the 
first step in determining what I already know--that the Lower 
Mississippi River Area would be a suitable and feasible asset to the 
National Park Service.
  I am proud to come to the floor today to reintroduce this bill. This 
area has vast historical significance and is an area with rich cultural 
history. In the 1500s, Spanish explorers traveled along the banks of 
the river. In 1682, Robert de LaSalle claimed all the land drained by 
the area. In 1699, the area became the site of the first fortification 
on the Lower Mississippi river, known as Fort Mississippi. Since then, 
it has been the home to 10 different fortifications, including Fort St. 
Philip and Fort Jackson.
  Fort St. Philip, which was originally built in 1749, played a key 
role during the Battle of New Orleans when soldiers blocked the British 
navy from going upriver. Fort Jackson was built at the request of GEN 
Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous local Civil War 
General P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of the famous Civil 
War battle know as the Battle of Forts which is also referred to as the 
``night the war was lost.'' Mr. President, as you can see, from a 
historical perspective, this area has many treasures that provide us a 
glimpse into our past. These are areas that have national significance. 
They should be maintained and preserved.
  There are also many other important and unique attributes to this 
area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and levee 
system in the United States. It is also home to the ancient Head of 
Passes site, to the Plaquemines Bend, and to two national wildlife 
refuges.
  Finally, this area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many 
different cultures have made this area home including Creoles, 
Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These 
cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for 
transportation of our nation's energy which is being produced by these 
same people out in the Gulf of Mexico off our shores. They have also 
created a fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.
  I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent 
addition to the National Park Service. That is why I am reintroducing 
this bill--to begin the process of adding this area as a unit to the 
National Park Service by conducting a study to determine the 
suitability and feasibility of bringing this area into the system. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.

                          ____________________