[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 169 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11384-S11389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2771. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit 
the penalty for failure to disclose reportable transactions based on 
resulting tax benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Small Business 
Penalty Relief Act of 2009 with my good friend and Ranking Member of 
the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley.
  The bill provides much needed penalty relief to small businesses 
across America that are being assessed large penalties by the Internal 
Revenue Service because they unknowingly invested in something called a 
``listed tax shelter transaction.''
  Many of these businesses thought they were putting their money into 
sound investments for the benefit of their employees and learned only 
after they were audited by the IRS that they instead had invested in 
something the IRS considers to be a tax shelter.
  Most small businesses do not have the resources to pay sophisticated 
tax lawyers and accountants to review all their business decisions. 
They have to do the best they can on their own. And that is how they 
ended up in the middle of a nightmare with the IRS.
  When a business invests in a listed tax shelter, the law requires 
that business to attach a form to the tax return telling the IRS about 
the shelter. If the business doesn't attach the form, it can be subject 
to a penalty of $200,000 per year. If the business has elected 
Subchapter S status, an additional $100,000 penalty applies at the 
individual level. Total penalties can add up to $300,000 each year. 
Multiply that by several years, and you can easily approach $1 million 
or more in penalties for a tax shelter you didn't even know you had.
  In the case of many small businesses, the annual tax benefit from 
their investment is quite minor--perhaps as small as $15,000. The 
$300,000 penalty plainly is out of whack.
  Just to be clear, Senator Grassley and I are not soft on tax 
shelters. We spearheaded legislation in 2004 that gave the IRS better 
tools to stop individuals and big companies from cleverly manipulating 
the tax code to avoid paying the taxes they owed. Our efforts were 
focused on egregious deals that cheated the U.S. Government out of 
millions and billions of dollars. Our efforts have made a serious dent 
in the proliferation of abusive tax scams and schemes.
  But we didn't intend that the 2004 legislation would end up 
threatening the existence of small businesses in Montana and across 
America, and the livelihoods of their employees who risk losing their 
jobs if the business goes under.
  Small businesses are struggling already. They don't need the added 
and unfair burden of a penalty that can be as much as 20 times larger 
than the taxes they saved.
  This bill changes the way the penalty is calculated. The penalty is 
based on a percentage of the tax benefit resulting from the investment. 
It is fairer and won't drive these companies out of business.
  Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation. Particularly in 
these tough economic times, we must make sure the tax laws reflect the 
important role that small business plays in our Nation's economic 
health and our citizens' economic security.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2772. A bill to establish a criminal justice reinvestment grant 
program to help States and local jurisdictions reduce spending on 
corrections, control growth in the prison and jail populations, and 
increase public safety; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am proud today to join Senators 
Cornyn and Leahy in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act 
of 2009, a bill designed to help States and localities approach 
spending on corrections in a more rational manner, better manage growth 
in the prison and jail populations, and increase public safety.
  Over 2,200,000 American adults are incarcerated in state and local 
prisons and jails; the prison population alone nearly tripled between 
1987 and 2007, from 585,000 to almost 1,600,000 inmates. States, in 
turn, have increased spending on corrections by $40 billion in the past 
20 years. Despite the continued growth of the inmate population, about 
half the states plan to cut corrections budgets for fiscal year 2010 
amid budget shortfalls.
  Most policymakers have limited access to detailed, data-driven 
explanations about changes in crime, arrests, convictions, and prison 
and jail population trends. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will 
provide them with the resources to undergo a thorough analysis of the 
drivers of growth, and to create and implement policy options to manage 
that growth.
  Specifically, the legislation will create a two-part grant program 
for governments to analyze criminal justice trends, develop policy 
options to address growth in the corrections system, and implement and 
measure the impact of the policy changes. Through Phase 1 grants, 
government entities will be able to conduct a comprehensive analysis of 
corrections data, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of state and local 
spending on corrections, and develop policy options suggested by the 
analysis. Phase 2 grants will provide funds to help government entities 
implement those policy options and to measure their effectiveness.
  Model programs in several states have already found this kind of data 
study helpful in managing the costs of a growing inmate population. An 
analysis of prison data in my home state of Rhode Island, for example, 
prompted legislation to standardize the calculation of earned time 
credits, establish risk reduction program credits, and require the use 
of risk assessments to inform parole release decisions. In Texas, the 
home State of one of my cosponsors, Senator Cornyn, the solution was 
much different but equally effective--following its analysis, the State 
invested $227 million on treatment programs and residential facilities 
to curb population growth, which averted spending $523 million on new 
prisons.
  The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will help state and local 
governments spend their limited corrections budgets in a more targeted, 
rational way to both manage inmate population growth and protect public 
safety. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Whitehouse 
and Cornyn in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 
2009. This important bipartisan legislation would help jurisdictions 
control the increased costs facing correctional systems across the 
country, while also improving public safety and reducing recidivism.
  In recent years, Federal and State governments have passed many new 
criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more and more 
crimes. As a former prosecutor, I strongly believe in securing tough 
and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But 
while it is important to ensure that serious crimes result in 
significant sentences, we must also work to make our criminal justice 
system as effective and efficient as possible. That is why I have long 
championed legislation like the Second Chance Act, which helps ensure 
that when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as 
productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous 
cycles of recidivism and violence.

[[Page S11385]]

  We have an obligation to help states cope with overburdened criminal 
justice systems and rising recidivism rates. Over the last twenty 
years, state spending on corrections has risen from $10 billion to $45 
billion a year by some reports, and that number is expected to rise. 
Despite mounting expenditures, recidivism rates remain high, and by 
some measures have actually worsened. The fastest growing category of 
admissions to prison is people already under some form of community 
supervision, such as probation or parole. We must learn how to break 
this cycle. Fixing this problem will make our communities safer, and we 
must act quickly because states simply cannot continue to spend these 
enormous sums on corrections, especially in these very difficult 
economic times.
  The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act provides states with the needed 
technical and financial resources to help them take key steps to break 
the cycle of recidivism. By helping states implement data-driven 
strategies to more effectively manage their correctional systems and to 
reinvest the saving in programs to reduce crime, the bill serves the 
dual purpose of cutting costs and improving public safety. I look 
forward to working with Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn and others to 
ensure the passage of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 2773. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a 
program to support the research, demonstration, and development of 
commercial applications for offshore wind energy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, 
development, demonstration and commercial application to advance 
offshore wind turbine technology. This bill will advance the goal of 
the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our Nation's 
electricity from wind resources by 2030.
  Mr. President, 61 percent of U.S. wind resources is in deepwater, 
greater than 60 meters, 197 feet, depth. Winds at these locations are 
stronger and more consistent than closer to shore or on land. But, it 
will take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and 
cost-effectively.
  This bill will focus national efforts to develop offshore wind 
technologies. This should be a national priority because it can produce 
clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 
coastal U.S. States use 78 percent of the electricity in the U.S. For 
example, Maine's offshore wind resource is close to the 55 million 
people who live in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 
This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population.
  Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require 
improvements in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore 
wind turbines and reductions in the cost of manufacturing, 
construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind 
energy systems. That is why my bill directs the Secretary of Energy to 
support existing university centers and establish new centers to 
support research, development, demonstration and commercial 
application. The bill authorizes $50 million annually tbo over 10 years 
for the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine 
foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, 
components, and supporting land- and water-based infrastructure for 
application in shallow water, transitional depth, and deep water 
offshore. The bill authorizes full-scale testing and establishment of 
regional demonstrations of offshore wind components and systems to 
validate technology and performance; assessments of U.S. offshore wind 
resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting 
issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for inclusion in a 
publically accessible database; design, demonstration, and deployment 
of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as 
composite materials; advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as 
automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to 
stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade manufacturing capacity; 
methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on 
marine ecosystems and marine industries; and other research areas as 
determined by the Secretary.
  This bill would support critical renewable energy research that would 
help reduce our use of fossil fuels and improve our energy security. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Wind Energy Research, 
Development, Demonstration and Commercial Application Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2774. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
prevent Medicare payments being lost to fraud, waste, or abuse; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 2008, Medicare accounted for about 
$470 billion of the $2 trillion spent on health care in the U.S..
  Conservative estimates are that as much as $60 billion of that 
Medicare spending is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse each year.
  News reports today tell us that the Medicare payment error rate for 
fiscal year 2009 is going to be 12.4 percent. To put it in a different 
way, last year, Medicare made 47 billion dollars in improper payments. 
$47 billion of taxpayer money that by all accounts was wasted by 
Medicare on payments that shouldn't have been made.
  As Medicare spending continues to skyrocket, so will the dollars lost 
to fraud, waste and abuse.
  That problem is bad enough. But it is even worse because it turns out 
that a rule in the law today makes it easier for crooks to cheat the 
system and steal money from Medicare.
  A recent 60 Minutes segment highlighted how the law as written 
contributes to the problem and drives this growing danger to the 
American taxpayer and public coffers.
  In this segment, we saw a medical supply company that billed 
Medicare, $2 million this past July--despite being empty and having 
apparently no staff.
  Federal agents described the problem as far bigger than the drug 
business in Miami now. They were told it has pushed aside cocaine as 
the biggest criminal enterprise there.
  According to those interviewed by 60 Minutes, an entire health care 
fraud industry exists today that is committed to doing nothing except 
finding ways to rip off the Medicare program.
  Many of these suppliers don't exist. There is no office that exists 
and nobody who works there. They recruit doctors and patients and use 
stolen patient lists, and do nothing but figure out how to steal from 
Medicare.
  One man interviewed said he was waking up every day making $20,000-
$40,000 every day. It was like winning the lottery he said. He was 
running a fake medical supply company that didn't actually sell any 
medical equipment to anyone. He says he stole at least 20 million 
dollars from Medicare. He said it was, quote ``real easy.''
  All he says he needed was someone pretending to run the office and 
then he just had to check his bank account every day to see how much 
money he had made. All he did was fill out forms to Medicare and in 15 
to 30 days he would have the money in his bank account.
  Even more alarming, he says that there are about 2,000 to 3,000 more 
fake medical suppliers just in Miami billing Medicare fake claims.
  They are able to do this because Federal law puts Medicare in a 
position of having to ``pay and chase'' health care fraudsters. this is 
because federal law requires that Medicare pay providers promptly 
regardless of any risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.
  The prompt payment requirement in current law requires payment for a 
``clean'' claim within 14 to 30 days. And that is not enough time for 
the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if the claim is 
legitimate before the payment has to be made.
  The result is that this ``prompt payment rule'' requires that 
Medicare pay fraudsters first, and ask questions later.
  This requirement in current law doesn't make any sense. I am here 
today to introduce a bill to fix it.
  This legislation, the Fighting Medicare Payment Fraud Act of 2009 
Act, would provide the government with an important new tool to fight 
fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare. This bill will stop the cycle of 
``paying and chasing.'' This legislation would protect

[[Page S11386]]

Federal taxpayer dollars from being wasted on suspicious payments that 
are required to be made because of the prompt payment rule.
  Today, the prompt payment rule applies to all payments regardless of 
the risk that those payments would be to fly-by-night operators. But 
this legislation ends the policy of pay first and ask questions later.
  This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the 
authority to ask questions first and then and ONLY then to make the 
payment if the health care provider and the payment for services check 
out.
  This bill accomplishes that by extending the time period in which 
payments must be made under the prompt payment rule in cases where the 
Secretary determines there is a likelihood of fraud, waste or abuse.
  For categories of providers or suppliers, the payment time period can 
be extended to up to one year. For individual providers or suppliers, 
the Secretary would be required to take whatever time is necessary to 
engage in more in-depth reviews to determine that the claims are 
supposed to be paid in the first place.
  With this additional time, the Secretary would be required to conduct 
more detailed reviews of suspicious claims to make sure they are 
supposed to be paid.
  This would help ensure that Medicare dollars are in fact going to 
bona fide providers, instead of fraudsters with empty strip mall 
medical supply companies.
  Finally, this legislation requires the experts in the Office of 
Inspector General to recommend, on at least an annual basis, categories 
of providers or suppliers that warrant additional time before payments 
are made under the prompt payment rule.
  To make sure there is action on these recommendations, the Secretary 
would be required to provide a response to the Inspector General on 
these recommendations.
  With this new authority to fight health care fraud, the Federal 
Government will be in a better position to protect taxpayer dollars and 
catch health care crooks.
  Crooks are taking advantage of Medicare's prompt payment requirement. 
They know they can bill Medicare, get their payment, and be gone before 
they get caught. And Federal law enables it to happen. That has got to 
end. This legislation takes that step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Webb):
  S. 2776. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to create the 
right business environment for doubling production of clean nuclear 
energy and other clean energy and to create mini-Manhattan projects for 
clean energy research and development; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Webb of Virginia, the colleague 
of the Presiding Officer, and I are introducing legislation today to 
propose that the United States build its clean energy future upon the 
lessons of the Manhattan Project of World War II. That helped end the 
war. It was a millions-of-man-hour effort that the New York Times 
called ``without doubt, the most concentrated intellectual effort in 
history.''
  Specifically, we will introduce legislation to create the business 
and regulatory environment to double our country's nuclear power 
production within 20 years and to launch five mini-Manhattan Projects 
to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-
competitive.
  The most important thing I can say is that the senior Senator from 
Virginia and the junior Senator from Virginia and I have all talked 
about this subject before. I think we see there is a great deal of 
consensus in this body about some steps we can take on clean energy. So 
what Senator Webb and I are hoping to do with this framework is to see 
on a one-on-one basis whether it is the kind of framework that will 
permit us to work with other Senators who expressed an interest in 
nuclear power and energy research and development. And while we are 
contending about economy-wide cap and trade, we could move ahead with 
these steps that have to do with clean energy, clean air, climate 
change, low-cost, reliable energy.
  In other words, this is a piece of legislation that you can support 
if you are for an economy-wide cap and trade or if you are against an 
economy-wide cap and trade. There are some things we can do to help our 
country that also help us deal with climate change.
  In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Senator McKellar, the 
Tennessean who chaired the Appropriations Committee, to hide $2 billion 
in the appropriations bill for a secret project to win World War II. 
Senator McKellar replied:

       That should be no problem, Mr. President. I have just one 
     question: Where in Tennessee do you want me to hide it?

  That place in Tennessee turned out to be Oak Ridge, one of the three 
secret cities that became the principal sites for the Manhattan Project 
that split the atom and built a bomb before Germany could. Nearly 
200,000 people worked on the project in 30 different sites in 3 
countries.
  President Roosevelt's $2 billion appropriation would be $24 billion 
today.
  After World War II, in 1947, ADM Hyman Rickover came to Oak Ridge for 
training that led to the nuclear Navy that helped to defend our country 
for half a century. Shortly thereafter, in December 1953, President 
Eisenhower proposed his Atoms For Peace Program that has grown into the 
world's most effective supplier of large amounts of reliable, carbon-
free, low-cost electricity.
  The rest of the world has a new interest in this American success 
story, as countries seek energy independence, clean air, cheap energy 
for job creation, as well as carbon-free energy to deal with global 
warming. The Chinese are starting a new nuclear powerplant every 2 or 3 
months. The Japanese obtain a third of their power from nuclear plants 
and build new reactors from start to finish in less than 4 years. 
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and, as a 
result, has among the lowest electricity rates and carbon emissions in 
Western Europe. Russia plans to double its nuclear power capacity. The 
United Arab Emirates is planning three new reactors by 2020, and just 
last week the United Kingdom announced it will build 10. Yet the 
country that invented this remarkable technology, the United States of 
America, has not started a new nuclear powerplant in 30 years even 
though we still get 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity and 19 
percent of all our electricity from 104 reactors built between 1970 and 
1990.
  It is true that there are other promising forms of low-carbon and 
carbon-free renewable energy, but the stark reality is that there is a 
huge gap between this renewable electricity we would like to have and 
the reliable, low-cost electricity that a country that uses 25 percent 
of all the energy in the world has to have.
  Today, despite heavy subsidies, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass 
renewable energy produce only 3 percent of U.S. electricity. The Energy 
Information Administration forecasts a 22-percent increase in U.S. 
electricity demand during the next 20 years. For that much electricity, 
our country simply cannot rely solely on conservation, on windmills and 
solar panels or even on natural gas. We are fortunate to have a new, 
massive natural gas set of discoveries in the United States, but a 
natural gas powerplant still produces about half as much carbon as a 
new coal plant. And if too many natural gas plants are built, today's 
low prices could mean high prices tomorrow for farmers, homeowners, and 
manufacturers.
  Add to that a recent Nature Conservancy scientific paper that warned 
of a coming renewable energy sprawl, especially from biofuels, biomass, 
and wind turbines, that would consume an area the size of West 
Virginia. A biomass plant, for example, that would produce as much 
electricity as one nuclear reactor on 1 square mile would require 
continuously deforesting an area about 1.5 times the size of the Great 
Smoky National Park. Producing 20 percent of our electricity from 50-
story wind turbines, as some have suggested, would require covering an 
area the size of West Virginia and building 19,000 miles of new 
transmission lines.
  When these are strung along scenic ridgetops, coastlines, or other 
treasured landscapes, we will be destroying the environment in the name 
of saving the environment. Solar and wind installations require between 
30 and 270

[[Page S11387]]

square miles to duplicate the output of just one nuclear reactor on 1 
square mile. Moreover, these energy sources must be backed up by other 
generation since they only produce power when the wind blows or the Sun 
shines, and that electricity cannot be stored in large amounts. There 
is only one wind farm in the entire Southern United States because the 
wind doesn't blow enough. In the Tennessee Valley Authority region, 
solar costs at least four to five times as much as other electricity 
that TVA buys.
  As for green jobs, according to the Department of Energy, there will 
be 250,000 construction jobs for 100 new nuclear plants. This would 
compare with 73,000 jobs to construct the 180,000 wind turbines needed 
to produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind. Of course, 
producing a lot of cheap, reliable energy is the best way to produce 
new jobs.
  Think of it this way. If we were going to war, we wouldn't mothball 
our nuclear Navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If climate change, as 
well as low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we should 
not stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills. I am 
on the side of those who say we need to deal with climate change. The 
national academies of 11 industrialized countries, including the United 
States, have said humans probably have caused most of the recent global 
warming.
  If fire chiefs of the same reputation said my house might burn down, 
I would buy fire insurance, but I would buy insurance that worked and 
that was not so expensive that I couldn't pay my mortgage or my 
hospital bill.
  Fortunately, there are two steps that will benefit our country in 
multiple ways--namely, cleaner air; more energy independence; more 
reliable, low-cost power--and will also help fight global warming. The 
first is to double production of electricity from carbon-free nuclear 
power, which would mean building 100 new plants as we did between 1970 
or 1990 or a larger number of the new, small, and modular reactors now 
being discussed. The second is to apply to the promising new 
technologies, such as the renewable technologies, the same discipline 
and resources we did with the original Manhattan Project in order to 
make them effective and cost competitive.
  That is why the bill Senator Webb and I are introducing today, the 
Clean Energy Act of 2009, proposes the following: No. 1, loan 
guarantees: $100 billion to encourage startup of all forms of carbon-
free electricity production, expanding the $47 billion loan guarantee 
program that exists today, and $18 billion of those funds are currently 
available for nuclear projects.
  Secretary Chu has suggested it should be in the forties. I believe 
that number should be closer to the sixties or the seventies. But the 
purpose of this is to get the first few nuclear plants up and running, 
and then the money is paid back. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates this could cost up to $10 billion but might cost much less. 
New reactor designs, $1 billion over 5 years to enable the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to review new designs such as the generation 4 
reactors that don't isolate plutonium and, therefore, help solve the 
used nuclear fuel problems, and small modular reactors that can be 
built in U.S. factories and assembled on site such as LEGO blocks. No. 
3, nuclear workforce, $1 billion over 10 years to ensure a supply of 
nuclear engineers, operators, and craftsmen such as welders and pipe 
fitters. Americans have a generation gap in these skilled personnel. 
No. 4, more power from existing reactors. This would be $500 million 
over 10 years to increase the efficiency and develop longer lifetimes 
for our existing 104 reactors. If we did both of these things, we might 
create the equivalent production of 20 or 30 more reactors. Then, 
finally, the five new, what we call mini-Manhattan Projects for clean 
energy.
  Here are the five mini-Manhattan Projects: $750 million per year over 
10 years for research and development on, No. 1, carbon capture 
emissions from coal plants. In many ways that is the holy grail of 
energy R&D. If we can find a way to do that, we can have all of the 
low-cost, clean electricity we can use. No. 2, develop advanced 
biofuels from crops that we don't eat; No. 3, improve batteries for 
electric cars so instead of taking us 100 miles without recharging, 
they might take us 300 or 400 miles; make solar power more cost 
competitive.
  That has the most promise in terms of renewable energy because we 
have rooftops on which to put the panels. They just cost too much 
today. Then recycling used nuclear fuel in a way that doesn't isolate 
plutonium, that reduces by 99.9 percent the radioactive life of what is 
left, and by 97 percent the mass we have to deal with. The cost to 
taxpayers over 20 years would be no more than $20 billion. There would 
be no new energy taxes or mandates. This $20 billion would compare with 
$170 billion we would spend in taxpayer subsidies, if we were to 
produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind, not counting the 
billions more for transmission lines.
  By my computation, if we actually did build 100 nuclear plants in 20 
years, as well as electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, which 
we should be able to do without building one new powerplant if we 
plugged them in at night, we would come close to reaching the 1990 
Kyoto global warming protocols without expensive new energy taxes. 
Reaching that goal is even more likely if some of our mini-Manhattan 
Projects produce results we hope for from new technologies.
  The world nuclear power revival is well underway. With our Clean 
Energy Act of 2009, that revival might finally reach American shores 
where it began. The lessons of the Manhattan Project could advance the 
days when more nuclear power and new forms of clean energy can make us 
more energy independent, clean our air, help fight global warming, and 
produce large amounts of reliable, low-cost, clean electricity that 
will keep American jobs from going overseas looking for cheap energy.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page 
summary of the Alexander-Webb legislation, called the Clean Energy Act 
of 2009.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Alexander-Webb--Clean Energy Deployment Act of 2009

       To create the business and regulatory environment to double 
     nuclear production in 20 years and establish 5 Mini-Manhattan 
     projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective 
     and cost-competitive
       1. Carbon-Free Electricity Loan Guarantees: $100 Billion 
     for technology-neutral carbon-free electricity loan guarantee 
     program. CBO estimates cost at $10 billion (may cost less). 
     Secretary Chu has suggested doubling the $18.5 billion 
     available today for nuclear power.
       2. New Reactor Designs: $250 million per year for five 
     years to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
     review new nuclear reactor designs such as Generation IV or 
     small modular reactors. (Would not impact NRC review of 
     potential sites for nuclear power plants.) Reaffirm the 
     federal government's commitment to dealing with spent nuclear 
     fuel.
       3. Nuclear Workforce: $100 million per year for ten years 
     for education, workforce development and training to ensure a 
     supply of nuclear engineers, operators and craftsmen such as 
     welders and pipefitters.
       4. More power from existing reactors: $50 million per year 
     for ten years for nuclear reactor lifetime-extension and 
     efficiency research. Increased efficiency and longer 
     lifetimes for existing 104 reactors could equal the 
     production of 20-30 new reactors.
       5. Five Mini-Manhattan Projects for Clean Energy R&D: ($750 
     million per year for ten years). Clean Coal: to make carbon 
     capture and storage a commercial reality ($150 million per 
     year). Advanced Biofuels: clean fuels from crops we don't eat 
     ($150 million per year). Advanced Batteries: for electric 
     vehicles ($150 million per year). Solar Power: to make solar 
     power cost competitive ($150 million per year). Recycling 
     Used Nuclear Fuel: ($150 million per year). Support Secretary 
     Chu's Blue-Ribbon Panel on what to do with used nuclear fuel.
       Decide upon the best way to recycle used nuclear fuel.
       i. Proliferation-resistant (no pure plutonium).
       ii. Reduce radioactive lifetime of final used fuel product 
     by 99.97 percent.
       iii. Reduce volume and mass of final used fuel by 97 
     percent of what it is today.
       Develop Generation IV reactors that will consume recycled 
     nuclear fuel.
       Total 20 year cost would be no more than $20.25 billion.
       *While the loan guarantee program is scored at 1 percent 
     for nuclear loans and 10 percent for other program 
     participants, this proposal uses a 10 percent score for all 
     loan guarantees.

                Alexander-Webb--Clean Energy Act of 2009

       To create the business and regulatory environment to double 
     nuclear production in 20

[[Page S11388]]

     years and establish 5 Mini-Manhattan projects to make 
     advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-
     competitive
       1. Carbon-Free Electricity Loan Guarantees: $100 Billion 
     for technology-neutral carbon-free electricity loan guarantee 
     program. CBO estimates cost at $10 billion (may cost less). 
     Secretary Chu has suggested doubling the $18.5 billion 
     available today for nuclear power.
       2. New Reactor Designs: $200 million per year for five 
     years to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
     review new nuclear reactor designs such as Generation IV or 
     small modular reactors. (Would not impact NRC review of 
     potential sites for nuclear power plants.) Reaffirm the 
     federal government's commitment to dealing with spent nuclear 
     fuel.
       3. Nuclear Workforce: $100 million per year for ten years 
     for education, workforce development and training to ensure a 
     supply of nuclear engineers, operators and craftsmen such as 
     welders and pipefitters.
       4. More Power from Existing Reactors: $50 million per year 
     for ten years for nuclear reactor lifetime-extension and 
     effiency research. Increased efficiency and longer lifetimes 
     for existing 104 reactors could equal the production of 20-30 
     new reactors.
       5. Five Mini-Manhattan Projects for Clean Energy R&D: ($750 
     million per year for ten years). Clean Coal: to make carbon 
     capture and storage a commercial reality ($150 million per 
     year). Advanced Biofuels: clean fuels from crops we don't eat 
     ($150 million per year). Advanced Batteries: for electric 
     vehicles ($150 million per year). Solar Power: to make solar 
     power cost competitive ($150 million per year). Recycling 
     Used Nuclear Fuel: ($150 million per year).
       Support Secretary Chu's Blue-Ribbon Panel on what to do 
     with used nuclear fuel. Decide upon the best way to recycle 
     used nuclear fuel.
       i. Proliferation-resistant (no pure plutonium).
       ii. Reduce radioactive lifetime of final used fuel product 
     by 99.97 percent.
       iii. Reduce volume and mass of final used fuel by 97 
     percent of what it is today.
       Develop Generation IV reactors that will consume recycled 
     nuclear fuel.
       Total 20 year cost would be no more than $20 billion.
       While the loan guarantee program is scored at 1 percent for 
     nuclear loans and 10 percent for other program participants, 
     this proposal uses a 10 percent score for all loan 
     guarantees.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be cosponsoring this 
legislation with the senior Senator from Tennessee. This is a strong 
attempt by both of us to go toward the area of problem solving rather 
than political rhetoric that surrounds a lot of this issue when we 
examine the pieces of legislation that are before us that are making an 
attempt at solving climate change issues. They are, in some cases, in 
contradiction to what our energy needs are at large.
  On the one hand we stopped building nuclear powerplants 30 years ago 
because of widespread fears among people who were in the political 
process about the technology that was involved. On another level we 
stopped drilling for oil offshore after some incidents, now 40 years 
ago. Then on another level, we heard repeatedly that coal was too 
dirty.
  At the same time we consume more and more energy, rightfully so, 
given the productivity of the country and the state of our economy. But 
we are in contradiction in terms of what we need versus what we fear. I 
believe the time has come for us to focus on those areas in terms of 
energy production that we know are achievable, that we know are safe, 
where we know we are good and which also can contribute positively in 
the area of climate change.
  We have an enormously complex climate change bill that was passed in 
the House. We have another enormously complex climate change bill that 
may be before the Senate. We can't predict whether those bills will 
pass. If they do pass, we know there are some detriments. What Senator 
Alexander and I are trying to do on a bipartisan basis, hopefully, with 
the support of our colleagues, is to put a simple piece of legislation 
forward that will address the areas that are achievable, that can give 
us an end result and get this legislation passed, while all of these 
other issues continue to be examined.
  Senator Alexander outlined the major points of this legislation. I 
would like to emphasize a couple. One is that we will be able to 
provide $100 billion in loan guarantees, but that is not $100 billion 
in money. That is $100 billion in guarantees. It depends on the success 
rate. The basic projection on this is that it will be between 1 and 10 
percent of that $100 billion that our taxpayers actually would be 
required to pay. So we are going to be able to bring at least a dozen 
nuclear powerplants online.
  When I say ``nuclear powerplants,'' I mean the electrical generation 
capability of a traditional nuclear powerplant. We may have more than 
those given the miniaturization of nuclear power that is now underway.
  We are going to be able to develop a nuclear workforce. Let me stay 
on this point for a minute. Senator Alexander was a former Secretary of 
Education. I have spent all of my life, since I was 18 years old, in 
and around the naval service from which our nuclear power programs 
first began. One of the great benefits of the nuclear power program in 
the United States has been quality individuals whose talents are 
unmatched around the world.
  I first watched this when I was at the Naval Academy many years ago, 
where among the brightest people at the Naval Academy, many were 
selected for the nuclear power program. They went through intensive 
training. But also among the enlisted sailors, the quality of the 
training was unsurpassed. We would like to see this take place in terms 
of workforce development in the United States.
  We want to put $100 million a year in over a 10-year period to 
develop superb craftsmen as well as nuclear engineers.
  We are looking at many mini-Manhattan Projects for alternate energy. 
This doesn't simply narrow the focus to nuclear energy. But we do know 
right now, even though we haven't built a new nuclear powerplant in the 
United States for 30 years, that 70 percent of the carbon-free 
electrical power in the United States comes from nuclear energy.
  This is a good match for what people are trying to do in the area of 
climate change. I believe the way we have designed this legislation is 
focused. I am comfortable with the fact that the expansion of nuclear 
power as an alternate energy is doable. It is reasonable in scope and 
in cost. It will go a long way toward our eventual goal of dramatically 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, this is legislation 
that will be beneficial to our economy, to our national health, to our 
position around the world.
  I hope colleagues will join us in moving this legislation forward. We 
can do it in a timely manner, and we know the results are there.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, for his 
leadership. He brings a special knowledge to this because of his 
background in the Navy as an engineer and as Secretary of the Navy. 
Thousands of our sailors have lived on top of reactors for 50 years 
safely. This is an idea that has broad support on both sides of the 
aisle, I believe. We have gotten so stuck on arguing about the economy-
wide cap and trade that we have failed to notice the areas where we may 
be able to agree. We certainly agree on energy research and 
development.
  The President has strongly supported that. We certainly agree on 
electrification of cars and trucks. The President also strongly 
supports that.
  I believe there is more agreement on nuclear power than we have seen 
before. So we are going to work with Democratic and Republican Senators 
who have already expressed such an interest and others who may be 
thinking about it over the next few weeks to see if this will form a 
framework for that kind of discussion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2777. A bill to repeal the American Recovery Capital loan program 
of the Small Business Administration; to the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the current recession has caused 
unemployment to balloon to 10.2 percent and with small businesses 
creating over \2/3\ of all net new jobs, the road to recovery leads 
through our Nation's small businesses. For this recovery to occur, we 
must ensure that our small businesses have access to affordable credit 
so that they can keep their doors open and start hiring some of the 
15.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed.
  The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has been 
extremely active on this issue,

[[Page S11389]]

and I thank Chair Landrieu for her leadership. The Committee has held a 
series of hearings on the credit crunch, to explore topics from 
alternative sources of credit to what policies government can enact 
that will help small businesses create jobs and weather this recession. 
In these hearings, the one constant message we have heard is that small 
businesses need access to capital. This message is borne out by the 
most recent Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey which 
shows that banks continue to tighten access to credit for small 
businesses--and have since the start of this recession.
  To help small businesses access credit I have introduced two bills, 
the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, and the Next 
Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, which contain provisions 
that would reduce fees for small business borrowers and lenders, allow 
refinancing of 7(a) and 504 loans; create a lender platform to give 
small business borrowers more lending options, and to increase the 
maximum amount borrowers can take out in 7(a), 504, and microloan loan 
sizes to give small businesses who have capital needs in excess of the 
Small Business Administration's current loan sizes more borrowing 
options.
  Many of the key provisions of my 10 steps bill were included in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, most notably, fee 
reduction for 7(a) and 504 loans. This provision, along with increasing 
the guarantee rate on 7(a) loans to 90 percent, has been credited with 
increasing small business lending by over 70 percent since the passage 
of the ARRA. I was also pleased that President Obama recently announced 
his support for the loan limit increases in my Next Steps bill as a 
part of his plan to expand access to capital for small businesses.
  These provisions have helped cushion the shock of the credit crisis 
for small business borrowers; however, I am concerned with one 
provision which has not lived up to its initial promise.
  The American Recovery Capital, ARC, loan program was included in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a result of a combined effort 
from both the Chairs and the Ranking Members of the House and Senate 
with the laudable goal of extending a lifeline to small business 
borrowers. The program allowed viable small businesses that were having 
difficulty paying their existing debts to access a 100 percent SBA-
guaranteed bank loan to repay these debts. These small business 
borrowers would receive payments for up to 6 months, and then have a 1-
year grace period before repayments on their ARC loan began.
  However, since its implementation in June, the ARC loan program has 
been plagued with difficulties, most notably, the Office of Management 
and Budget has estimated that based on the underwriting requirements 
put forth by the administration, 60 percent of borrowers utilizing this 
program may default on their loans.
  The ARC program was intended to assist viable small businesses that 
will be able to repay the loan, not to add additional debt to those who 
will not. Proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars demands that we put a 
stop to any Federal program which does not achieve its stated goals. 
ARC loans are one such program. My legislation immediately suspends the 
ARC loan program and returns all unobligated funds back to the 
Treasury.
  We must ensure that above all else, taxpayer funds are protected.
  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 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2777

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AMERICAN RECOVERY CAPITAL LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 506 of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 
     Stat. 157) is repealed.
       (b) Return of Funds.--Any unobligated balances of the 
     amounts appropriated under the heading ``Business Loans 
     Program Account'' under the heading ``SMALL BUSINESS 
     ADMINISTRATION'' under title V of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 
     Stat. 151) for loan subsidies and loan modifications for 
     loans to small business concerns authorized in section 506 of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 are rescinded.
       (c) Applicability.--Any loan guarantee under section 506 of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 entered into before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     shall remain in full force and effect under the terms, and 
     for the duration, of the loan guarantee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 2778. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development 
Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am joining some of my colleagues 
from the Environment and Public Works Committee in introducing a bill 
to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, EDA. EDA works 
with partners in economically distressed communities to create wealth 
and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to 
attract private investment and encourage long-term economic growth.
  I have long been a strong supporter of EDA. I believe the agency does 
an outstanding job of providing relatively small grants that help 
secure significant amounts of private investment in distressed 
communities across the country. Contrary to what some people would say, 
the government itself does not--frankly, cannot--expand the economy and 
create long-term jobs. That is the role of the private sector.
  What the government can do, however, is help provide the right 
conditions for private sector investments to flourish. EDA does this in 
a myriad of ways, but primarily through infrastructure investments. I 
only wish more of the so-called ``stimulus'' bill enacted earlier this 
year had been dedicated to programs like EDA that are truly successful 
at spurring economic development.
  Unlike the majority of the spending in the so-called ``stimulus'' 
bill, EDA investments actually provide economic benefits. In fact, 
studies show that EDA uses federal dollars efficiently and effectively, 
creating and retaining long-term jobs at an average cost that is among 
the lowest in government.
  In my home State of Oklahoma, for example, EDA has worked long and 
hard with many communities in need to bring in private capital 
investment and jobs. Durant, Clinton, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Seminole, 
Elk City, Muskogee, Woodward, Shawnee, Claremore, Miami and Elgin are 
just some of the Oklahoma communities that have made good use of EDA 
assistance. In fact, over the past seven years, EDA grants awarded in 
my home state have resulted in more than 9,000 jobs being created. With 
an investment of about $33 million, we have leveraged another 32.7 
million in State and local dollars and more than 625 million in private 
sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful success story.
  Authorization of FDA's programs expired on September 30, 2008. I had 
introduced a reauthorization bill in July, 2008, and the EPW Committee 
reported a bipartisan bill in September 2008. Unfortunately the bill 
was not enacted. I again introduced my own reauthorization bill in 
February of this year. Today I am happy to join my colleagues in 
introducing a similar bill that I hope will be approved by the 
Committee and the full Senate in the very near future. Particularly in 
these difficult economic times, we should be doing all we can to ensure 
the continuation of successful economic development programs, and EDA 
reauthorization is an important step.

                          ____________________