[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 17 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S484-S500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 2982. A bill to combat international violence against women and 
girls; to the Common on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
International Violence Against Women Act, introduced today by Senators 
Kerry, Boxer, Snowe, and Collins. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor on this legislation simply because it has the power to save 
the lives of women and girls around the world while increasing our 
safety here at home.
  This bill is particularly significant because it would be a very 
significant effort by the U.S. to tackle this egregious and widespread 
problem. One out of every three women worldwide will be physically, 
sexually or otherwise abused during her lifetime, with rates reaching 
70 percent in some countries.
  Ranging from rape to domestic violence and acid burnings to dowry 
deaths and so-called honor killings, violence against women and girls 
is an extreme human rights violation, a public health epidemic and a 
barrier to solving global challenges such as extreme poverty, HIV/AIDS 
and conflict. It devastates the lives of millions of women and girls--
in peacetime and in conflict--and knows no national or cultural 
barriers.
  Women who are abused are not only more likely to face serious injury 
or death because of abuse, but are at much greater risk of dying in 
pregnancy, having children who die in childhood, and contracting HIV/
AIDS.
  What many people don't realize though is that violence against women 
and girls is a major cause of poverty. Women are much more likely to be 
among the world's poorest, living on a $1 a day or less, and the 
violence they face keeps them poor. It prevents them from getting an 
education, going to work, and earning the income they need to lift 
their families out of poverty. In turn, women's poverty means they are 
not free to escape abuse, perpetuating a vicious cycle that keeps women 
from making better lives for themselves and their families.
  In Nicaragua, for example, a study found that children of victims of 
violence left school an average of 4 years earlier than other children. 
In India, it has been found that women who experienced even a single 
incident of violence lost an average of 7 working days. Sometimes, the 
workplace itself can be a source of abuse: in Kenya, 95 percent of the 
women who had experienced sexual abuse in their workplace were afraid 
to report the problem for fear of losing their jobs.
  Greater economic opportunity and earning capacity not only allows 
women an option of escaping violent situations, but more importantly, 
it increases equality and mutual respect within households, reducing 
women's vulnerability to abuse in the first place.
  Women around the world are working desperately to change the laws and 
customs in their countries that routinely allow women and girls to be 
raped, beaten or deprived of any legal rights, even the ability to see 
a doctor or leave the house alone. But they need our help.
  IVAWA is a good step in that direction.
  The bill was developed in consultation with more than 150 expert 
organizations, including the input of 40 women's groups from all around 
the world.
  Highlighting the cross-cutting nature of the issue of violence, the 
bill is supported by a diverse coalition of almost 200 NGOs, including 
Amnesty International USA, Women Thrive Worldwide, Jewish Women 
International, Family Violence Prevention Fund, CARE, United Methodist 
Church, and Refugees International.
  This bill would direct the State Department to create a comprehensive 
5-year strategy to reduce violence against women and girls in up to 20 
countries and provide vital funds to foster programs in these countries 
that address violence in a coordinated, comprehensive way. It would do 
this by reforming legal and health sectors, helping to change social 
norms and attitudes that condone rape and abuse, and improving 
education and economic opportunities for women and girls.
  Because violence against women is often rampant in countries 
embroiled in conflict or crisis, this bill also requires that the U.S. 
act in cases of extreme outbreaks of violence against women and girls, 
like the horrific levels of rape experienced by women in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo.
  This legislation is necessary because this is not an academic issue--
we must remember that the scourge of gender-based violence effects real 
women around the world.
  But there are solutions.
  When Dulce Marlen Contreras started her organization with seven of 
her friends, the first thing on her mind was how to help the women of 
Honduras protect themselves from domestic violence. A daughter of 
farmers in the rural region of La Paz, Honduras, Marlen was tired of 
watching the women of her community endure widespread alcoholism and 
household abuse.
  In 1993, Marlen founded the Coordinadora de Mujeres Campesinas de La 
Paz, or COMUCAP, to raise awareness about women's rights. The 
organization started by educating women in the community about their 
rights and training them to stand up for themselves.
  As time went on, Marlen noticed something was missing. While 
awareness-building was critical, in order to reduce violence for the 
long-term COMUCAP had to attack the problem at its root: poverty. ``We 
realized that until women are economically empowered, they will not be 
empowered to escape abuse for good,'' says Marlen. Seeing this link 
changed the way COMUCAP approached its work. It started training women 
to grow and sell organic coffee and aloe vera, helping them to earn an 
income for their families.
  Initially the reaction from the community was hostile--women's 
empowerment was seen as a threat to families. As COMUCAP's programs 
grew, however, they started seeing results--the more money women made, 
the more power they were able to assert in the household.
  As the community started to view the women of COMUCAP as economic 
contributors to its families, more and more women made decisions 
jointly with their husbands and stood up for themselves and their 
children in the face of abuse. Today COMUCAP provides employment and 
income to over 256 women in its community. Household violence has 
reduced drastically within the families of COMUCAP.
  This example clearly illustrates that violence against women is 
preventable and that there are proven solutions that work. Even more 
inspiring, there are many thousands of local organizations like COMUCAP 
worldwide, which work within their own communities to support women in 
violent situations, help them find ways to support themselves and 
change cultural attitudes within their communities.
  By supporting funding to overseas women's organizations to enable 
them

[[Page S485]]

to work independently, IVAWA encourages this type of grassroots 
sustainability that will be crucial to any permanent solution to 
violence.
  Violence has a profound effect on the lives of women and girls, and 
therefore, all communities around the world. As a member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to continue to work with my 
colleagues to fight to end it and to provide any assistance and 
resources necessary to achieve this goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2986. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration to waive interest for certain loans relating to damage 
caused by Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Gustav, or 
Hurricane Ike; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an 
issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: 
disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 and 
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008. Almost 5 years after these first two 
devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during 
hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit 
areas continue to rebuild. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing 
recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe 
will help these struggling small businesses become successful once 
again and hire new workers.
  Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care 
Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that need 
this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I 
toured the Bergerons' business back in June. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, 
which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, 
Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, 
one for their house and another for their small business. As of our 
visit in June, the Bergerons were down to two employees, not including 
themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre-
Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. 
Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes 
in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high 
homeowner's insurance.
  As of June when I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA 
disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he 
will not pay off until he is 101 years old. But just yesterday, Mrs. 
Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan 
repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding 
their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most 
loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been 
cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the 
economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees 
earlier last year.
  The Bergeron's story is one I have heard from countless businesses. 
Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more 
recently, the economic downturn, these businesses--the ones that took 
the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling 
with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are 
the ones rebuilding communities need the most because they serve as 
anchors. If residents see the Bergeron's gas station, or their favorite 
restaurant, open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their 
homes.
  To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these 
struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the 
Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010. I 
thank my colleague Representative Charlie Melancon for introducing the 
House companion bill. Our legislation would provide targeted assistance 
to as many as 22,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 
What these particular businesses have in common is that they received 
SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they 
have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless 
businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had 
additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital 
into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive 
up to $15,000 of interest payments over 3 years, helping to create or 
save up to 81,000 jobs.
  Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications 
from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened 
between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or 
September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that 
SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses 
that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The program would 
end on December 31, 2010.
  This program makes a difference because for some businesses, 
depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/
interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, 
for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25-
year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly 
interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in 3 
years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or 
Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station 
with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant 
with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink 
as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, 
believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses, as they are 
the backbone of our communities.
  My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous 
Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, 
Louisiana and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross 
reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were 
adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only 
previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River 
floods, which forced more than a million people from their homes. In 
total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 
150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also 
destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, 
the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 
that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising 
even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as 
storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in 
rebuilding their lives and homes.''
  As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate 
assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined 
that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster-
specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast 
Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill 
authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster 
assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its 
committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the 
Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the 
committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the 
disaster-stricken areas . . .  including special measures to help these 
States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' 
Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive 
interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of 3 
years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into 
law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to 
implement provisions in the Act.
  Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and 
Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, 
farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our State. 
Images from the devastation following these storms, and the 
subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country 
and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural 
disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 in 
Louisiana alone. Katrina was also the costliest natural

[[Page S486]]

disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in 
damage.

  In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 
81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the 
entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses 
impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various 
reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish 
was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina 
business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent 
of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent 
fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the 
Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 
hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in 
mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in 
Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from 
Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike 
in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who 
were still struggling a year on from the hurricane.
  These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas 
station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open 
and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergerons' 
story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: 
Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the 
economic downturn. My home State of Louisiana was slow to feel the 
brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown, but last year we 
began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of 
consumers' pocketbooks. I believe the special program implemented 
following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit 
businesses in these three states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav 
and Ike. Given the urgent needs of many of these impacted businesses, I 
will be reaching out to my colleagues in Texas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi to hopefully gain their support for quick passage of this 
assistance. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I 
am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on 
whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well.
  In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in 
providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. 
However, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we 
must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this 
anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or 
additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this 
Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these 
businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the 
interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate 
colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a 
difference for up to 22,000 Main Street business owners and their 
estimated 81,000 employees in the Gulf Coast.
  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. 2986

       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 ``Southeast Hurricanes Small 
     Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the term ``covered disaster loan'' means a loan--
       (A) made under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b));
       (B) for damage or injury caused by Hurricane Katrina of 
     2005, Hurricane Rita of 2005, Hurricane Gustav of 2008, or 
     Hurricane Ike of 2008; and
       (C) made to a business located in a declared disaster area;
       (3) the term ``declared disaster area'' means an area in 
     the State of Louisiana, the State of Mississippi, or the 
     State of Texas for which the President declared a major 
     disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) relating 
     to Hurricane Katrina of 2005, Hurricane Rita of 2005, 
     Hurricane Gustav of 2008, or Hurricane Ike of 2008;
       (4) the term ``program'' means the Southeast Hurricanes 
     Small Business Disaster Relief Program established under 
     section 3; and
       (5) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 3(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).

     SEC. 3. SOUTHEAST HURRICANES SMALL BUSINESS DISASTER RELIEF 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Established.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Administrator shall establish a Southeast 
     Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Program, under 
     which the Administrator may waive payment of interest by a 
     business on a covered disaster loan--
       (1) for not more than 3 years; and
       (2) in a total amount of not more than $15,000.
       (b) Priority of Applications.--The Administrator shall, to 
     the extent practicable, give priority to an application for a 
     waiver of interest under the program by a small business 
     concern--
       (1) with not more than 50 employees; or
       (2) that resumed business operations in--
       (A) a declared disaster area relating to Hurricane Katrina 
     of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, during the period 
     beginning on September 1, 2005, and ending on October 1, 
     2006; or
       (B) a declared disaster area relating to Hurricane Gustav 
     of 2008 or Hurricane Ike of 2008, during the period beginning 
     on September 1, 2008, and ending on January 1, 2009.
       (c) Termination of Program.--The Administrator may not 
     approve an application under the program after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2989. A bill to improve the Small Business Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the 
Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2010, legislation 
designed to protect the interests of small businesses and boost their 
opportunities in the Federal marketplace.
  As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy 
promoting the interests of small businesses in the federal contracting 
arena. The legislation I am introducing today marks a critical step 
forward in this process.
  As the largest purchaser in the world, the Federal Government is 
uniquely positioned to offer new and reliable business opportunities 
for our Main Street businesses. Government contracts are perhaps one of 
the easiest and most inexpensive ways the government can help 
immediately increase sales for America's entrepreneurs, giving them the 
tools they need to keep our economy strong and create jobs. By 
increasing contracts to small businesses by just 1 percent, we can 
create more than 100,000 new jobs--and today, we need those jobs more 
than ever.
  But the reality is, small businesses need all the help they can get 
accessing Federal contracts. In fiscal year 2007, according to the 
Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Government missed its 23 
percent contracting goal by .992 percent. That .992 percent represents 
more than $3.74 billion and 93,500 jobs lost for small businesses. The 
numbers are even worse the next fiscal, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal 
Procurement Data System reported that the government missed its goal by 
1.51 percent--meaning more than $6.51 billion and 162,700 jobs lost. 
While these numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is 
vital for our small businesses and our overall economy, they are still 
only a part of the story of why this legislation is needed.
  Our small businesses have been taking the brunt of this economic 
downturn. In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 
85 percent of job losses. This fact was vividly illustrated to me this 
weekend when I met with Louisiana business owners and officials. A 
small business owner who spoke at our meeting told of how he was down 
from 20 plus employees to three. He was clear that if he had access to 
federal work he would begin staffing up tomorrow. That is the reason I 
am introducing this legislation today. These contracting opportunities 
represent job creation for small businesses in a way that is unique. 
When large businesses get new work they

[[Page S487]]

typically spread that work among existing employees. When small 
businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased 
demand.
  Furthermore, last night President Obama made the case that small 
businesses need to be the focus of our recovery. I have heard over and 
over again that small business is the engine that drives our economy. 
Well, if that is true, then it is time to give that engine some gas. 
President Obama set the right tone last night and today our bill looks 
to act on his words and fill that tank as we consider improvements in 
four key areas.
  The first area I attempt to make improvements in is the area of 
contract bundling. Although contract bundling may have started out as a 
good idea, it has now become the prime example of the old saying that 
too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of 
bundled contracts coupled with the decimation of contracting 
professionals within the government threatens to kill small businesses' 
ability to compete for federal contracts.
  Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of 
senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and 
accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all federal 
agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by 
the Small Business Administration, SBA.
  The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a 
department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its 
agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to 
participate as prime contractors and subcontractors.
  Another way that this bill attempts to tackle the issue of bundling 
is by creating a joint venture and teaming center at the SBA. This 
center will provide technical support to associations and businesses 
who are interested in bidding on larger contracts as part of small 
business teams or joint ventures. The bill will also ease regulations 
that serve as a disincentive for small businesses who want to enter 
into teaming relationships with one another.
  The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. 
The Committee has heard from many businesses about the challenges that 
some small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime 
contractors. Business owners have related that the way subcontracting 
compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also 
related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort 
preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the 
contract is won they never heard from the prime contractor again. Many 
also complain about a lack of timely payments after they have completed 
work.
  This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including 
provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by 
prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines 
and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation 
in prime contracts and provides for speedier payments to small business 
subcontractors who have successfully completed work on behalf of the 
prime contractor.
  The third area I intend to update is the acquisition process. This 
bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting 
opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled 
contracts by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The 
bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in 
multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; directing the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy to issue guidelines to analyze the use of 
government credit cards for the purpose of meeting small business 
goals; and requiring that agencies include meeting small business 
contracting goals in the performance evaluation of contracting and 
program personnel.
  The last area that I tackle in this legislation is small business 
size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of 
small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. 
It is imperative that small business contracts go to small businesses. 
Small businesses may be losing billions of dollars in opportunities 
because of size standard loopholes.
  This bill attempts to address these issues by making additions to the 
Small Business Act that are designed to strengthen the government's 
ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business 
certification. To achieve this, the new section: establishes a 
presumption of loss to the federal government whenever a large business 
performs a small business contract; requires that small businesses 
annually certify their size status; requires the development of 
training programs for small business size standards; requires a 
detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA 
within one year; and directs GAO to study the effectiveness of the 
mentor-protege program.
  It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the 
thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the 
Federal Government. I believe that this legislation is a good step 
toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues 
will join me in supporting this bill and I look forward to working with 
them as we work to move this legislation forward.
  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. 2989

       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 ``Small Business Contracting 
     Revitalization Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                       TITLE I--CONTRACT BUNDLING

Sec. 101. Leadership and oversight.
Sec. 102. Consolidation of contract requirements.
Sec. 103. Small business teams pilot program.

                   TITLE II--SUBCONTRACTING INTEGRITY

Sec. 201. GAO recommendations on subcontracting misrepresentations.
Sec. 202. Small business subcontracting improvements.

                     TITLE III--ACQUISITION PROCESS

Sec. 301. Reservation of prime contract awards for small businesses.
Sec. 302. Micro-purchase guidelines.
Sec. 303. Agency accountability.
Sec. 304. Payment of subcontractors.
Sec. 305. Repeal of Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration 
              Program.

           TITLE IV--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE AND STATUS INTEGRITY

Sec. 401. Policy and presumptions.
Sec. 402. Annual certification.
Sec. 403. Training for contracting and enforcement personnel.
Sec. 404. Updated size standards.
Sec. 405. Study and report on the mentor-protege program.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively; and
       (2) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).
                       TITLE I--CONTRACT BUNDLING

     SEC. 101. LEADERSHIP AND OVERSIGHT.

       (a) In General.--Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 644) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Bundling Accountability Measures.--
       ``(1) Teaming requirements.--Each Federal agency shall 
     include in each solicitation for any contract award above the 
     substantial bundling threshold of the Federal agency a 
     provision soliciting bids by teams and joint ventures of 
     small business concerns.
       ``(2) Agency policies on reduction of contract bundling.--
     The head of each Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, publish on the website of the Federal 
     agency the policy of the Federal agency regarding contracting 
     bundling and consolidation, including regarding the 
     solicitation of teaming and joint ventures under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     head of the Federal agency submits data certifications to the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, publish on the 
     website of the Federal agency a list and rationale for any 
     bundled contract for which the Federal agency solicited bids 
     or that was awarded by the Federal agency.
       ``(3) Reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, 
     the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
     for each Federal agency shall submit to the Committee on 
     Small Business

[[Page S488]]

     and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report regarding 
     procurement center representatives and commercial market 
     representatives, which shall--
       ``(A) identify each area for which the Federal agency has 
     assigned a procurement center representative or a commercial 
     market representative;
       ``(B) explain why the Federal agency selected the areas 
     identified under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) describe the activities performed by procurement 
     center representatives and commercial market 
     representatives.''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 15(g) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)) is amended by striking 
     ``Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Administrator for 
     Federal Procurement Policy''.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report regarding the 
     procurement center representative program of the 
     Administration.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) address ways to improve the effectiveness of the 
     procurement center representative program in helping small 
     business concerns obtain Federal contracts;
       (B) evaluate the effectiveness of procurement center 
     representatives and commercial marketing representatives; and
       (C) include recommendations, if any, on how to improve the 
     procurement center representative program.
       (d) Electronic Procurement Center Representative.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator shall implement an electronic procurement 
     center representative program.

     SEC. 102. CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 44 as section 45; and
       (2) by inserting after section 43 the following:

     ``SEC. 44. CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `Chief Acquisition Officer' means the 
     employee of a Federal agency designated as the Chief 
     Acquisition Officer for the Federal agency under section 
     16(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 414(a));
       ``(2) the term `consolidation of contract requirements', 
     with respect to contract requirements of a Federal agency, 
     means a use of a solicitation to obtain offers for a single 
     contract or a multiple award contract to satisfy 2 or more 
     requirements of the Federal agency for goods or services that 
     have been, are being, or will be provided to, or will be 
     performed for or would typically be performed for, the 
     Federal agency under 2 or more separate contracts lower in 
     cost than the total cost of the contract for which the offers 
     are solicited;
       ``(3) the term `Federal agency' does not include the 
     Department of Defense or any agency of the Department of 
     Defense;
       ``(4) the term `multiple award contract' means--
       ``(A) a multiple award task order contract or delivery 
     order contract that is entered into under the authority of 
     sections 303H through 303K of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 
     253k); and
       ``(B) any other indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity 
     contract that is entered into by the head of a Federal agency 
     with 2 or more sources pursuant to the same solicitation; and
       ``(5) the term `senior procurement executive' means an 
     official designated under section 16(c) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(c)) as the 
     senior procurement executive for a Federal agency.
       ``(b) Policy.--The head of each Federal agency shall ensure 
     that the decisions made by the Federal agency regarding 
     consolidation of contract requirements of the Federal agency 
     are made with a view to providing small business concerns 
     with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime 
     contractors and subcontractors in the procurements of the 
     Federal agency.
       ``(c) Limitation on Use of Acquisition Strategies Involving 
     Consolidation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of a Federal agency may not 
     carry out an acquisition strategy that includes a 
     consolidation of contract requirements of the Federal agency 
     with a total value of more than $2,000,000, unless the senior 
     procurement executive or Chief Acquisition Officer for the 
     Federal agency, before carrying out the acquisition 
     strategy--
       ``(A) conducts market research;
       ``(B) identifies any alternative contracting approaches 
     that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation of 
     contract requirements; and
       ``(C) determines that the consolidation of contract 
     requirements is necessary and justified.
       ``(2) Determination that consolidation is necessary and 
     justified.--
       ``(A) In general.--A senior procurement executive or Chief 
     Acquisition Officer may determine that an acquisition 
     strategy involving a consolidation of contract requirements 
     is necessary and justified for the purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(C) if the benefits of the acquisition strategy 
     substantially exceed the benefits of each of the possible 
     alternative contracting approaches identified under paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       ``(B) Savings in administrative or personnel costs.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), savings in administrative or 
     personnel costs alone do not constitute a sufficient 
     justification for a consolidation of contract requirements in 
     a procurement unless the expected total amount of the cost 
     savings, as determined by the senior procurement executive or 
     Chief Acquisition Officer, is substantial in relation to the 
     total cost of the procurement.
       ``(3) Benefits to be considered.--The benefits considered 
     for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) may include cost 
     and, regardless of whether quantifiable in dollar amounts--
       ``(A) quality;
       ``(B) acquisition cycle;
       ``(C) terms and conditions; and
       ``(D) any other benefit.''.

     SEC. 103. SMALL BUSINESS TEAMS PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Center'' means the Center for Small Business 
     Teaming established under subsection (b); and
       (2) the term ``eligible organization'' means a well-
     established national organization for small business concerns 
     with the capacity to provide assistance to small business 
     concerns (which may be provided with the assistance of the 
     Center) relating to--
       (A) customer relations and outreach;
       (B) submitting bids and proposals;
       (C) team relations and outreach; and
       (D) performance measurement and quality assurance.
       (b) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     Center for Small Business Teaming within the Administration 
     to carry out a pilot program for teaming and joint ventures 
     involving small business concerns.
       (c) Grants.--The Center may make grants to eligible 
     organizations to assemble teams of small business concerns to 
     compete for larger procurement contracts.
       (d) Contracting Opportunities.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall work with eligible 
     organizations receiving a grant under this section to 
     identify appropriate contracting opportunities for teams or 
     joint ventures of small business concerns.
       (2) Restricted competition.--A contracting officer of a 
     Federal agency may restrict competition for any contract for 
     the procurement of goods or services by the Federal agency to 
     teams or joint ventures of small business concerns if 
     determined appropriate by the contracting officer.
       (e) Termination.--The authorities under this section shall 
     terminate 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants by the Center under subsection 
     (c) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
                   TITLE II--SUBCONTRACTING INTEGRITY

     SEC. 201. GAO RECOMMENDATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING 
                   MISREPRESENTATIONS.

       Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Prevention of Misrepresentations in Subcontracting; 
     Implementation of Recommendations of Comptroller General.--
       ``(1) Statement of policy.--It is the policy of Congress 
     that the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the 
     United States in Report No. 05-459, concerning oversight 
     improvements necessary to ensure maximum practicable 
     participation by small business concerns in subcontracting, 
     shall be implemented Government-wide, to the maximum extent 
     possible.
       ``(2) Contractor compliance.--Compliance of Federal prime 
     contractors with subcontracting plans relating to small 
     business concerns shall be evaluated as a percentage of 
     obligated prime contract dollars and as a percentage of 
     subcontracts awarded.
       ``(3) Issuance of agency policies.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the head of 
     each Federal agency shall issue a policy on subcontracting 
     compliance relating to small business concerns, including 
     assignment of compliance responsibilities between contracting 
     offices, small business offices, and program offices and 
     periodic oversight and review activities.''.

     SEC. 202. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 8(d)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(d)(6)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end, the following:
       ``(G) a certification that the offeror or bidder will 
     acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or 
     materials, or obtain the performance of construction work 
     from the small business concerns used in preparing and 
     submitting to the contracting agency the bid or proposal, in 
     the same amount and quality used in preparing and submitting 
     the bid or proposal, unless the small business concerns are 
     no longer in business or can no longer meet the quality, 
     quantity, or delivery date.''.

[[Page S489]]

                     TITLE III--ACQUISITION PROCESS

     SEC. 301. RESERVATION OF PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(r) Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the 
     Administrator shall jointly, by regulation, establish 
     criteria for Federal agencies for--
       ``(1) setting aside part or parts of a multiple award 
     contract (as defined in section 44), Federal supply schedule 
     contracts, and other Government-wide acquisition contracts 
     for small business concerns, including the subcategories of 
     small business concerns identified in subsection (g)(2);
       ``(2) setting aside orders placed against multiple award 
     contracts, Federal supply schedule contracts, and other 
     Government-wide acquisition contracts for small business 
     concerns, including the subcategories of small business 
     concerns identified in subsection (g)(2); and
       ``(3) reserving 1 or more contract awards for small 
     business concerns under full and open multiple award 
     procurements, including the subcategories of small business 
     concerns identified in subsection (g)(2).''.

     SEC. 302. MICRO-PURCHASE GUIDELINES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial 
     Management shall issue guidelines regarding the analysis of 
     purchase card expenditures to identify opportunities for 
     achieving and accurately measuring fair participation of 
     small business concerns in purchases in an amount not in 
     excess of the micro-purchase threshold, as defined in section 
     32 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     428) (in this section referred to as ``micro-purchases''), 
     consistent with the national policy on small business 
     participation in Federal procurements set forth in sections 
     2(a) and 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631(a) 
     and 644(g)), and dissemination of best practices for 
     participation of small business concerns in micro-purchases.

     SEC. 303. AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY.

       Section 15(g)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     644(g)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)'';
       (2) by striking ``Goals established'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Goals established'';
       (3) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting the following:
       ``(C) Whenever'';
       (4) by striking ``For the purpose of'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) For the purpose of'';
       (5) by striking ``The head of each Federal agency, in 
     attempting to attain such participation'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) The head of each Federal agency, in attempting to 
     attain the participation described in subparagraph (D)''.
       (6) in subparagraph (E), as so designated--
       (A) by striking ``(A) contracts'' and inserting ``(i) 
     contracts''; and
       (B) by striking ``(B) contracts'' and inserting ``(ii) 
     contracts''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F)(i) Each procurement employee or program manager 
     described in clause (ii)--
       ``(I) shall communicate to the subordinates of the 
     procurement employee or program manager the importance of 
     achieving small business goals; and
       ``(II) shall have as a significant factor in the annual 
     performance evaluation of the procurement employee or program 
     manager, where appropriate, the success of that procurement 
     employee or program manager in small business utilization, in 
     accordance with the goals established under this subsection.
       ``(ii) A procurement employee or program manager described 
     in this clause is a senior procurement executive, senior 
     program manager, or Director of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization of a Federal agency having contracting 
     authority.''.

     SEC. 304. PAYMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS.

       Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Payment of Subcontractors.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `covered 
     contract' means a contract relating to which a prime 
     contractor is required to develop a subcontracting plan under 
     paragraph (4) or (5).
       ``(B) Notice.--
       ``(i) In general.--A prime contractor for a covered 
     contract shall notify in writing the contracting officer for 
     the covered contract if the prime contractor pays a reduced 
     price to a subcontractor for goods and services upon 
     completion of the responsibilities of the subcontractor or 
     the payment to a subcontractor is more than 90 days past due 
     for goods or services provided for the covered contract for 
     which--
       ``(I) the Federal agency has paid the prime contractor; or
       ``(II) the prime contractor has submitted a request for 
     payment to the Federal agency.
       ``(ii) Contents.--A prime contractor shall include the 
     reason for the reduction in a payment to or failure to pay a 
     subcontractor in any notice made under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Public availability.--The head of each Federal 
     agency shall, after redacting information identifying any 
     subcontractor, make publicly available any notice made under 
     clause (i).
       ``(C) Performance.--A contracting officer for a covered 
     contract shall consider the failure by a prime contractor to 
     make a full or timely payment to a subcontractor in 
     evaluating the performance of the prime contractor.
       ``(D) Control of funds.--A contracting officer for a 
     covered contract may restrict the authority of a prime 
     contractor that has a history of untimely payment of 
     subcontractors (as determined by the contracting officer) to 
     make expenditures under or control payment of subcontractors 
     for a covered contract.''.

     SEC. 305. REPEAL OF SMALL BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Business Opportunity Development 
     Reform Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-656) is amended by 
     striking title VII (15 U.S.C. 644 note).
       (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made 
     by this section--
       (1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to the first full fiscal year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
           TITLE IV--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE AND STATUS INTEGRITY

     SEC. 401. POLICY AND PRESUMPTIONS.

       Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Presumption.--
       ``(1) In general.--In every contract, subcontract, 
     cooperative agreement, cooperative research and development 
     agreement, or grant which is set aside, reserved, or 
     otherwise classified as intended for award to small business 
     concerns, there shall be a presumption of loss to the United 
     States based on the total amount expended on the contract, 
     subcontract, cooperative agreement, cooperative research and 
     development agreement, or grant whenever it is established 
     that a business concern other than a small business concern 
     willfully sought and received the award by misrepresentation.
       ``(2) Deemed certifications.--The following actions shall 
     be deemed affirmative, willful, and intentional 
     certifications of small business size and status:
       ``(A) Submission of a bid or proposal for a Federal grant, 
     contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, or cooperative 
     research and development agreement reserved, set aside, or 
     otherwise classified as intended for award to small business 
     concerns.
       ``(B) Submission of a bid or proposal for a Federal grant, 
     contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, or cooperative 
     research and development agreement which in any way 
     encourages a Federal agency to classify the bid or proposal, 
     if awarded, as an award to a small business concern.
       ``(C) Registration on any Federal electronic database for 
     the purpose of being considered for award of a Federal grant, 
     contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, or cooperative 
     research agreement, as a small business concern.
       ``(3) Certification by signature of responsible official.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each solicitation, bid, or application 
     for a Federal contract, subcontract, or grant shall contain a 
     certification concerning the small business size and status 
     of a business concern seeking the Federal contract, 
     subcontract, or grant.
       ``(B) Content of certifications.--A certification that a 
     business concern qualifies as a small business concern of the 
     exact size and status claimed by the business concern for 
     purposes of bidding on a Federal contract or subcontract, or 
     applying for a Federal grant, shall contain the signature of 
     a director, officer, or counsel on the same page on which the 
     certification is contained.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to provide adequate protections to individuals 
     and business concerns from liability under this subsection in 
     cases of unintentional errors, technical malfunctions, and 
     other similar situations.''.

     SEC. 402. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.

       Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(u) Annual Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each business certified as a small 
     business concern under this Act shall annually certify its 
     small business size and, if appropriate, its small business 
     status, by means of a confirming entry on the ORCA database 
     of the Administration, or any successor thereto.
       ``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Inspector General and the Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy of the Administration, shall promulgate 
     regulations to ensure that--
       ``(A) no business concern continues to be certified as a 
     small business concern on the ORCA database of the 
     Administration, or any successor thereto, without fulfilling 
     the requirements for annual certification under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(B) the requirements of this subsection are implemented 
     in a manner presenting the least possible regulatory burden 
     on small business concerns.
       ``(3) Determination of size status.--The small business 
     size or status of a business concern shall be determined at 
     the time of the award of a Federal--
       ``(A) contract, except that, in the case of interagency 
     multiple award contracts (as defined in section 44), small 
     business size or

[[Page S490]]

     status shall be determined annually, except for purposes of 
     the award of each task or delivery order set aside or 
     reserved for small business concerns;
       ``(B) subcontract;
       ``(C) grant;
       ``(D) cooperative agreement; or
       ``(E) cooperative research and development agreement.''.

     SEC. 403. TRAINING FOR CONTRACTING AND ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Institute, in 
     consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement 
     Policy, shall develop courses concerning proper 
     classification of business concerns and small business size 
     and status for purposes of Federal contracts, subcontracts, 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and cooperative research and 
     development agreements.
       (b) Policy on Prosecutions of Small Business Size and 
     Status Fraud.--Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) Policy on Prosecutions of Small Business Size and 
     Status Fraud.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the head of each relevant 
     Federal agency and the Inspector General of the 
     Administration shall issue a Government-wide policy on 
     prosecution of small business size and status fraud.''.

     SEC. 404. UPDATED SIZE STANDARDS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall--
       (1) conduct a detailed review of the size standards for 
     small business concerns established under section 3(a)(2) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2));
       (2) make appropriate adjustments to size standards under 
     that section to reflect market conditions; and
       (3) make publically available information regarding--
       (A) the factors evaluated as part of the review conducted 
     under paragraph (1); and
       (B) the criteria used for any revised size standards 
     promulgated under paragraph (2).

     SEC. 405. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the mentor-protege program of 
     the Administration for small business concerns participating 
     in programs under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 637(a)), and other relationships and strategic 
     alliances pairing a larger business and a small business 
     concern partner to gain access to Federal Government 
     contracts, to determine whether the programs and 
     relationships are effectively supporting the goal of 
     increasing the participation of small business concerns in 
     Government contracting.
       (b) Matters To Be Studied.--The study conducted under this 
     section shall include--
       (1) a review of a broad cross-section of industries; and
       (2) an evaluation of--
       (A) how each Federal agency carrying out a program 
     described in subsection (a) administers and monitors the 
     program;
       (B) whether there are systems in place to ensure that the 
     mentor-protege relationship, or similar affiliation, promotes 
     real gain to the protege, and is not just a mechanism to 
     enable participants that would not otherwise qualify under 
     section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) to 
     receive contracts under that section; and
       (C) the degree to which protege businesses become able to 
     compete for Federal contracts without the assistance of a 
     mentor.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     results of the study conducted under this section.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking Member of the Senate Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today, along with 
Senator Landrieu, to introduce the Small Business Contracting 
Revitalization Act of 2010. This critical piece of legislation is the 
direct result of consensus-building and compromise, and continues the 
bipartisan tradition of the Small Business Committee. I also wish to 
thank Chair Landrieu for her partnership with me in forging this truly 
crucial measure as we work toward contracting parity for small 
business, and for her tireless leadership on all concerns confronting 
small businesses today.
  The Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2010 retains 
critical procurement provisions that originate in the comprehensive 
contracting bills I introduced or cosponsored in the 109th and 110th 
Congresses which were unanimously voted out of the Small Business 
Committee. This particular legislation will serve to minimize the use 
of contract bundling and consolidation of contracts by the Federal 
Government, and increase the ability of small businesses to fairly 
compete for such contracts through a host of key improvements, 
including allowing small businesses to join together in teams to bid on 
certain procurement opportunities. Additional requirements will help to 
ensure prompt payment from prime contractors to subcontractors, and 
make it easier for the Federal Government to prosecute businesses who 
fraudulently identify themselves as small companies.
  Since the mid-1990s, with the enactment of acquisition streamlining 
reforms and the downsizing of the Federal procurement workforce, small 
businesses have faced a litany of hurdles that have deprived them of 
Federal contracting dollars. One such impediment is contract bundling 
which takes contracting opportunities out of the hands of deserving 
small businesses by grouping numerous small contracts and bundling them 
into one large award. Ill-equipped to manage the demands of these 
consolidated awards due to a lack of resources, small business owners 
again find themselves crowded out of the Federal contracting process. 
Consequently, the bipartisan measure we are introducing today reflects 
the recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 
to impose stricter reviews and more comprehensive reporting of bundled 
contracts, encourages small business teaming to bid on larger 
contracts, and promotes Federal agency publishing and use of best 
practices. Additional obstacles to successful small business 
contracting include ``bait and switch'' tactics used by prime 
contractors who use small firms in developing bids but do not 
subcontract with them once a contract has been awarded. Our bill will 
address this concern as well as other ongoing problems such as large 
businesses posing as small businesses, flawed reporting data, and 
agencies who fail to meet their small business contracting goals.
  As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I am further dismayed by the myriad ways that 
government agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet the 
vast majority of their small business statutory ``goaling'' 
requirements. It is unconscionable that the statutory goal for only one 
category of small business--small disadvantaged businesses--has been 
met, and that goals for the three other programs--HUBZones, women-owned 
small businesses, and service-disabled veterans-owned businesses--have 
never been achieved.
  Consider that, in 2007, small businesses were eligible for $378 
billion in Federal contracting awards, yet received only $83 billion. 
This blatant failure to utilize small businesses, thus preventing them 
to secure their fair share of Federal contracting dollars, has resulted 
in firms losing billions of dollars in contracting opportunities. But 
23 percent is only a base goal--we must strive to exceed it, not just 
meet it.
  In the last two years alone, the Small Business Committee has held 
numerous hearings and roundtables to identify and explain small 
business' contracting concerns. In addition, the GAO and the Small 
Business Administration's Inspector General have issued multiple 
reports addressing small business Federal contracting deficiencies. Our 
legislation builds on the contracting provisions of previous Small 
Business Committee contracting bills by endowing the SBA with 
additional tools to meet the demands of an ever-changing 21st century 
contracting environment.
  That said, I am greatly encouraged by the latest statistics relating 
to Federal contracting dollars awarded to small businesses from the 
funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 
ARRA. Preliminary reports show that, as of February 1, 2010, small 
businesses have received over 29 percent of the ARRA Federal 
contracting dollars, well-exceeding the imposed 23 percent statutory 
goal. This begs the question, if the Federal government can not only 
meet but exceed these requirements for the Recovery Act, why can't 
these goals be met year in and year out? The simple answer is they can. 
I am hopeful that this administration will make a conscious effort to 
reverse the government-wide failure to meet small business goals on a 
consistent basis.
  I am confident that this legislation will result in the changes 
necessary to reduce fraud and waste while paving the way for the 
Federal government to

[[Page S491]]

maximize the use of America's innovative small businesses in the 
contracting arena. Again, I want to recognize Senator Landrieu for her 
leadership in this matter, and for her continuing commitment to the 
small business community.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. 
        Collins, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2995. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish a national 
uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric 
generating sector; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today Senator Carper and I have joined 
with Senators Klobuchar, Collins, Gregg, Kaufman, Graham, Feinstein, 
Shaheen, Schumer, Lieberman, and Snowe to introduce the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 2010.
  This bill is about clean air and the effect of sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants on 
health, jobs, and tourism. This bill does not address carbon emissions.
  To me the most important aspect of this bill is that for the very 
first time it puts into federal law requirements that we cut mercury 
emissions by 90 percent from coal plants, which produce 50 percent of 
our electricity today.
  This bill will reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury 
emissions from power plants by directing EPA to cut mercury emissions 
at least 90 percent through the best available technology and 
strengthening national limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide and 
nitrogen oxides from power plants with new trading systems that will 
enable cost-effective reductions of these two pollutants.
  For Tennesseans this is a bill about our health, it is about tourism 
in our State and it is about our jobs.
  400,000 Tennesseans have asthma that is affected by the dirty air in 
our state. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides can trigger asthma 
attacks and cause chronic lung problems. 400,000 Tennesseans with 
asthma are at a daily risk due to poor air quality.
  The more we learn about mercury the more we understand that it gets 
in our food supply, it gets in our water supply, some of it comes from 
our coal plants and it especially affects women and children. 
Nationwide, EPA estimates this bill will save more than 215,000 lives 
and more than $2 trillion in health care costs by 2025.
  In our State, we are privileged to have the most visited national 
park in America, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park--we are 
intensely proud of it. But we want the 10 million tourists who come 
there every year to see the blue haze that the Cherokee Indians used to 
sing about, not the smog that is produced by dirty air blowing into our 
State and some of the dirty air that we produce.
  Finally we have become an automobile State. When auto parts suppliers 
move to Tennessee and want to locate near the Nissan plant or near the 
Volkswagen plant, one of the first things they have to do is to get a 
clean air permit. Our State simply cannot clean up our air all by 
ourselves without strong national standards to require the rest of the 
country to stop producing dirty air that blows into our State. So for 
Tennesseans this is about our health, about our tourism and our 
mountains, and this is about our jobs.
  The Environmental Protection Agency says the bill will only cost 
electricity consumers about 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent increases in 
their utility bills by 2020. This may only be about $2 a month per 
customer. I think $2 a month is worth it for savings of $2 trillion in 
health care costs.
  In summary, this bill helps save hundreds of thousands of lives, 
saves trillions of health care dollars, enables communities to meet new 
EPA air quality requirements and create new jobs, and protects the 
scenic beauty of some of our greatest natural treasures.
  Cleaner air is something we can all support and I ask my colleagues 
to join Senator Carper and me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010


 To reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions from 
                              power plants

       Sponsors and Cosponsors: Carper, Alexander, Klobuchar, 
     Collins, Gregg, Kaufman, Graham, Feinstein, Shaheen, Schumer, 
     Lieberman, Snowe.
       Background on the Pollutants:
       1. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a gas that can 
     quickly trigger asthma attacks, but is most dangerous as one 
     of the primary raw ingredients in particle pollution. 
     SO2 converts in the atmosphere into microscopic 
     fine particles that can lodge deep in the lungs--and increase 
     the risk of dying early, trigger heart attacks, strokes, and 
     may cause lung cancer.
       2. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are the key contributor 
     to ozone smog, which causes respiratory illness and harms 
     crops and ecosystems.
       3. Mercury is a neurotoxin. High exposure to mercury can 
     harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune systems, 
     especially in children and pregnant women. Also harms crops, 
     wildlife, and streams.
       What this bill does:
       Codifies the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for 2010 and 
     2011--setting SO2 and NOX standards for 
     eastern states.
       Strengthens national limits on emissions of SO2 
     and NOX from power plants and creates new trading 
     systems that will enable cost-effective reductions of these 
     two pollutants.
       Directs EPA to cut mercury emissions at least 90% through 
     the best available technology.
       Why it is needed--
       Jobs: Clean air targets promote job creation in 
     engineering, construction, and manufacturing of advanced 
     clean air technologies. Targets help communities meet air 
     quality standards, so new manufacturers can get clean air 
     permits, build new facilities, and hire new workers.
       In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, it will allow more 
     auto part suppliers to build facilities near the new 
     Volkswagen plant and employ thousands of Tennesseans.
       Health: Cleaner air means residents are less likely to have 
     chronic lung disease, asthma, or lung cancer.
       Nationwide, EPA estimates this bill will save more than 
     215,000 lives and more than $2 trillion in health care costs 
     by 2025.
       In Tennessee, 400,000 Tennesseans with asthma are at a 
     daily risk due to poor air quality.
       In Delaware, over 18,000 children with asthma are living in 
     areas of poor air quality.
       Tourism: Millions of people a year visit the Great Smoky 
     Mountains National Park to see the ``Blue Haze'' not the smog 
     from dirty air. Tennessee has over 85 million tourists visit 
     the state each year, generating over $14 billion for the 
     State of Tennessee.
       Certainty: Clear targets provide certainty for pubic health 
     protection and for power sector investment. Predictability 
     allows companies to find the most cost-effective ways to 
     employ clean air technologies.
       How it works: Through the use of emissions control 
     equipment, such as ``scrubbers'' on smokestacks, and other 
     technologies, the bill would require utilities to:
       Cut SO2 emissions by 80 percent (from 7.6 
     million tons in 2008 to 1.5 million tons in 2018).
       Cut NOX, emissions by 53 percent (from 3 million 
     tons in 2008 to 1.6 million tons in 2015).
       Cut mercury emissions by at least 90 percent no later than 
     2015.

                                        CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide...................  Codifies CAIR for 2010 and 2011.
                                   National Caps
                                     Beginning in 2012--3.5 million tons emission cap.
                                     Beginning in 2015--2.0 million tons emission cap.
                                     Beginning in 2018--1.5 million tons emission cap.
                                     Builds on Acid Rain national trading program.
Nitrogen Oxide...................  Codifies CAIR for 2010 and 2011.
                                   National Caps
                                     Beginning in 2012--1.79 million tons emission cap.
                                     Beginning in 2015--1.62 million tons emission cap.
                                     Creates two regional trading programs--for the East and the West.
Mercury..........................  Directs EPA to cut mercury emissions from coal plants by at least 90% by 2015
                                    through maximum available control technology enforcement.

[[Page S492]]

 
Carbon Dioxide...................  Not included in this legislation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Voinovich, and Ms. 
        Landrieu):
  S. 2996. A bill to extend the chemical facility security program of 
the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, 
for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the 
nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end 
of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital 
importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with 
Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.
  The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that 
manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From 
pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of 
industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable 
the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well-
being of the American people.
  The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American 
economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is 
one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion 
annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and 
supports millions more indirectly.
  These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to 
our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners 
of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, 
to cause a horrifying loss of life.
  In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist 
threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating 
consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of 
those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to 
provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority 
necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical 
facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security 
legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.
  Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules 
requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability 
assessments, develop site security plans to address identified 
vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy 
risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those 
vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and 
inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance 
standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered 
facilities that are non-compliant.
  In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as 
the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth 
the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply 
with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based 
performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance 
with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the 
perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft 
of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.
  CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, 
the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the 
security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the 
facility decides would best address the particular facility and its 
security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the 
Department's 18 performance standards.
  Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked 
aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired 
and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and 
headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the 
Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the 
Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.
  Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive 
regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to 
implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting 
the very highest security risks.
  To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the 
Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain 
threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online 
security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and 
any other available information, the Department then ascertained 
whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and 
preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating 
risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's 
performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them 
are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 
1 and 2.
  For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high 
risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of 
security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the 
Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, 
to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, 
these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to 
inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.
  The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous 
amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According 
to the  Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 
38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities 
of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

  As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some 
facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered 
their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned 
final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 
and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.
  Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, 
it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private 
sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative 
nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for 
security-related regulation.
  Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS 
program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in 
complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by 
radically overhauling the law.
  Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed 
legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, 
requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its 
considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the 
House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish 
new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical 
facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer 
technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the 
Department over CFATS implementation.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will 
in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose 
unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the 
collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.
  The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that 
certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an 
approach

[[Page S493]]

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, 
less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It 
is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise 
methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is 
safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or 
unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process 
or elsewhere on the supply chain.
  For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of 
the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have 
determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective 
drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely 
on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such 
as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source 
water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and 
the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those 
inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

  According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the 
Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous 
chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use 
as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to 
achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would 
have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into 
the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased 
frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident 
resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the 
accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would 
likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a 
gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is 
so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of 
an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated 
areas.
  Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic 
havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that 
all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 
testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 
before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would 
negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and 
microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.
  Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could 
encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, 
costing thousands of American jobs.
  To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will 
want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of 
the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.
  In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical 
facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have 
already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of 
extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. 
The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities 
voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

  Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the 
House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a 
screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should 
not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security 
when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's 
security needs.
  That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are 
introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security 
Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from 
scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more 
years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient 
time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would 
also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical 
innovation and industry confidence.
  Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are 
based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For 
Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to 
establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the 
capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical 
industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency 
response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate 
against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second 
would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these 
capabilities.
  Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but 
also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations 
in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, 
and manufacturing.
  As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one 
is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical 
facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job 
developing a comprehensive chemical security program.
  If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is 
incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its 
job implementing CFATS.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL, of Colorado:
  S. 2999. A bill to provide consistent enforcement authority to the 
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service to respond to 
violations of regulations regarding the management, use, and protection 
of public lands under the jurisdiction of these agencies, 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 improve the management our public lands by increasing the fines and 
penalties associated with violations of law--and regulation--governing 
the use of these lands.
  Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and 
development has resulted in an expanded use and enjoyment of our public 
lands. These uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the 
public land agencies to adequately control and manage such uses. As a 
result, many of our public lands are being damaged.
  While most users are responsible and law-abiding, some either 
knowingly or inadvertently violate these rules and damage these 
precious natural resources, which harms wildlife, increases run-off and 
sediment loading in rivers and streams, diminishes the enjoyment of 
other users, and impacts sensitive high-alpine tundra, desert soils, 
and wetlands. In addition, as we have seen over the past decade, the 
careless use of fire can catastrophically damage homes and habitat, and 
can result in the tragic loss of life.
  Often times, when these violations occur, the federal public land 
agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with 
the damage that results. For example, under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management is limited to a 
fine of $1,000 no matter how great the damage. That figure has remained 
unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact 
that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more 
to repair.
  The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for 
such knowing violations to $100,000, and possible imprisonment, and for 
other non-willful violations to $5,000. The bill is similar to one that 
I cosponsored in previous Congresses. The need for this legislation was 
demonstrated by incidents in several states, including some in 
Colorado.
  For example, in the summer of 2000, two recreational off-road 
vehicles ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of 
Land Management land high above Silverton, CO. As a result, they got 
stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the 
flanks of Houghton Mountain.
  At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with 
others to pull them out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was 
significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that 
may take thousands of years to recover. As noted

[[Page S494]]

in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has 
evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, 
drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless 
against big tires.''
  Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 
apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others.
  Another example was an event in the mountains near Boulder, CO, that 
became popularly known as the ``mudfest.''
  Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take 
their off-road four-wheel drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an 
area of private property along an existing access road used by 
recreational off-road vehicles. Their on-air announcement resulted in 
hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive 
wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal 
toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 
acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the 
damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, 
to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion 
of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only 
assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a 
special use permit to cross the lands.
  Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the 
violation or the damage that ensued, and is an ineffective deterrent 
for future similar behavior.
  These are but two examples. And these violations are not just limited 
to off-road vehicle use. Regrettably, there have been many more such 
examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west from a range 
of public land uses. These examples underscore the nature of the 
problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity 
and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of 
the federal public land agencies.
  My bill would do just that. Specifically, it would amend the Federal 
Lands Policy and Management Act and other relevant laws governing the 
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on those 
who violate laws and regulations governing the use of these special 
lands. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to assess up to $100,000 in fines, or up to 12 
months in jail, or both, for violations of these laws and regulations. 
In addition, the bill establishes that any reckless use of fire on 
these public lands shall be punishable by fines of no less than $500.
  This bill augments another bill, S. 720, the Federal Land 
Restoration, Enhancement, Public Education, and Information Resources 
Act or the Federal Land REPAIR Act, which I have introduced this 
session with my colleague Senator Bennet. S. 720 would authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any 
funds acquired from violations to the area that was damaged or affected 
by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for 
proper recreational use of our federal lands.
  With the increase in fines established by this bill, along with the 
authorization to apply these funds to restoring damaged lands under the 
REPAIR Act, these public land agencies could restore address impacts on 
these public lands. Specifically, these bills would allow the public 
land agencies to repair damaged wildlife habitat, replant wetland 
vegetation, re-vegetate scarred lands, repair trails, roadways, and 
embankments to stem erosion and restore riparian ecosystems, and 
install barriers and other security measures to help deter violations 
in the first place.
  Together, these bills can go a long way to giving the federal public 
land agencies the tools they need to better protect and restore these 
sensitive and critical lands for the use and enjoyment for generations 
to come. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 3002. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety 
risks unknown to consumers; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 with my colleague Senator Dorgan. 
This bill would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, 
regulation of dietary supplements to ensure the safety of the millions 
of Americans who use them daily. The proposed legislation would require 
manufacturers of dietary supplements to register with the FDA and 
disclose a full list of ingredients contained in each supplement. 
Currently, these companies do not have to submit such information 
before their products are offered for sale to consumers.
  A little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players, including two 
players from one of the teams competing this Sunday, for violating the 
league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that 
they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary 
supplement they believed to be safe and legal. Additionally, a recent 
GAO study, GAO-09-250, found that a record number of young Americans 
are using dietary supplements naively believing these supplements are 
safe and approved by the FDA for sale. However, FDA does not have a 
pre-market approval process. In a recent article published in The New 
York Times, it was reported that Americans spent almost $24 billion on 
dietary supplements last year. Close to $3 billion of that total is 
estimated to have come from manufactures that frequently advertise 
their products as alternatives to anabolic steroids, which are used for 
increasing muscle mass and strength.
  The current regulatory process does not adequately address the 
problem. Manufactures of dietary supplements are not required to 
demonstrate that their product is safe and effective before it is 
offered for sale to the public. The dietary supplement industry is one 
that is mostly self-regulated. However, manufacturers have failed to 
disclose to their customers key ingredients that may harm a consumer's 
health.
  For this reason, the proposed bill would require manufacturers to 
register the locations they manufacture these supplements, the products 
they are making, and disclose the ingredients found in their products 
with the FDA. Furthermore, dietary supplement companies would be 
required to provide a 75 day pre-market notice to the FDA not only for 
New Dietary Ingredients, but for all products containing steroids, 
including hormones, pro-hormones, and hormone analogues, and must 
establish that the product is safe for its intended use.
  Lastly, the proposed legislation provides the FDA with mandatory 
recall authority if a product is found to be unsafe or harmful. Had 
this provision been in place earlier, the FD might not have taken 10 
years to ban ephedra, a dietary ingredient that accounted for 64 
percent of all adverse reactions in 2001, despite accounting for 1 
percent of all total dietary supplement sales. It has been reported 
that use of ephedra contributed to the deaths of Baltimore Orioles 
pitcher Steve Bechler and Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer. 
Sadly and unfortunately, there are numerous stories of amateur athletes 
who took this supplement and experienced serious health problems.
  Legitimate dietary supplement companies should have nothing to fear 
from this legislation. These additional requirements are critical to 
the FDA's ability to evaluate the safety of particular dietary 
ingredients and to quickly identify and notify all dietary supplement 
manufacturers and consumers of ingredients with known safety risks. 
People's lives and dreams have been significantly impacted by 
illegitimate supplements. The purpose of the bill is not to create a 
sweeping regulatory structure, but instead a targeted structure that 
provides for openness, transparency and safety. All Americans should 
know the ingredients of any dietary supplement they use and the FDA 
must have the tools necessary to ensure the safety of all Americans.
  I am proud that this legislation is supported by all the major sports 
leagues, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball 
Association, the National Football League,

[[Page S495]]

and the National Hockey League. Additionally, the legislation is 
supported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the United States 
Olympic Committee, the American College of Sports Medicine, National 
College Athletic Association, NCAA, and the PGA Tour. I hope my 
colleagues will join these organizations in supporting this needed 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 3003. A bill to enhance Federal efforts focused on public 
awareness and education about the risks and dangers associated with 
Shaken Baby Syndrome; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby 
Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes 
awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a 
devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, 
disability or death of hundreds of children each year.
  Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our 
youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child 
Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of 
abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, 
children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of 
all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and 
younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing 
statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that 
child abuse is widely under reported.
  Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading 
cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants 
younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and 
violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill 
the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of 
hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in 
lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.
  Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of 
Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, 
an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 
more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. 
Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome 
cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not 
immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.
  Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of 
Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention 
Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to 
educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number 
of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.
  In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving 
hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based 
organizations in awareness and training activities, including home 
visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged 
prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new 
parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that 
less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about 
the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and 
training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.
  With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 
2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by 
abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. 
Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, 
including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, 
evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and 
establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help 
coordinate national efforts.
  The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care 
providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of 
shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated 
parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The 
legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, 
and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through 
a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities 
are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs 
and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in 
current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded 
into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. 
Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and 
young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and 
abusive impacts to the head.
  Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current 
data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of 
collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the 
incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of 
perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that 
having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be 
at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby 
Syndrome.
  On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia 
Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from 
New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from 
Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from 
Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, 
Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, 
Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen 
Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from 
Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, 
Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar 
from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from 
Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode 
Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John 
Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from 
California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, 
Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette 
Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria 
from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from 
California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from 
Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, 
Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia 
Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from 
Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from 
Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant 
from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from 
Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from 
Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives 
lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see 
that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to 
eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 3004. A bill to require notification to and prior approval by 
shareholders of certain political expenditures by publicly traded 
companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court ruled 
that corporations, U.S. or multinational, are equivalent to people and 
should be able to spend an unlimited amount of company money on 
political campaigns.
  I bet the framers of our constitution could not only tell the 
difference between businesses and people, but could predict the result 
if businesses are permitted to spend without limit to elect their 
favorite politicians.
  The top three Fortune 500 companies brought in an average profit of 
more than $27 billion last year. The average Ohio household brought 
home an income of about $48,000.

[[Page S496]]

  If you believe our government should be by the people and for the 
people--flesh and blood people--then corporations already have far more 
influence on our political process than they should.
  In 2009, corporations spent $3.3 billion lobbying Congress to 
influence insurance legislation and prescription drug legislation and 
financial reform legislation and the list goes on. Now they will be 
able to spend unlimited funds to elect their favorite candidates to 
Congress, getting in on the ground floor in the hopes that legislation 
they don't like will never see the light of day.
  Grassroots organizations like, conservative organization and Families 
USA, whose members are real people with real concerns, will be left in 
the dust by the drug industry and other deep pocketed special 
interests.
  The bottom-line is that our democratic form of government will sit on 
a cushion of corporate cash. If Corporate America wants to decide who 
runs our country, they will have a billion ways to do it.
  Congress has--and must exercise--its constitutionally granted 
authority to minimize the negative impact of this decision. Today, I 
introduced The Citizens Right to Know Act, legislation that is intended 
to reduce the incentive for corporations to buy out the political 
process. It would also put a stop to foreign influence on U.S. 
elections.
  To protect shareholder investments, this legislation would require 
all the shareholders of a corporation to vote for election spending 
before it happens, with approval by a majority of shareholders. Each 
shareholder would get one vote per share of common stock held. If 
shareholders know that millions or billions in potential dividends are 
about to be spent on campaign ads, they may help instill some reason 
into the, elected, leadership of the corporations they own.
  It would also require corporate CEOs to do what political candidates 
do when they pay for political advertising: political candidates face 
the camera and tell the public that they sponsored the commercial. 
Corporate CEOs would have to do the same for their political 
advertisements. Issue organizations or trade groups would have to 
disclose their three top corporate contributors, and to disclose 
funding information for certain radio and print ads on their website. 
Shedding sunlight on the political shenanigans of billion dollar 
corporations may do a world of good in dampening the effects of their 
spending.
  Finally, the bill would close a loophole that permits foreign 
investors, including foreign governments, to influence U.S. elections 
by channeling money through a U.S. affiliate. Any company that has a 51 
percent or greater ownership stake from a foreign entity, be it a 
foreign individual, business association, or government, would be 
prohibited from spending money to influence. I think we can all agree 
that foreign governments should not have the same right to contribute 
to campaigns as the American people, and it would be outrageous if they 
could spend money to influence the outcome of the Presidential or any 
other race.
  Americans--true, red blooded Americans--should decide who represents 
them in our democratic system. Billion dollar corporations make 
important contributions to our nation, but tilting our democratic 
system their way is not one of them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 3005. A bill to create an independent research institute, to be 
known as the ``National Institute of Finance'', that will oversee the 
collection and standardization of data on financial entities and 
activities, and conduct monitoring and other research and analytical 
activities to support the work of the Federal financial regulatory 
agencies and the Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Institute of 
Finance Act of 2010, which would create an Institute to provide our 
financial regulators with the data and analytic tools needed to prevent 
and contain future financial crises.
  By establishing this new Institute, my bill offers the foundation for 
a new approach to financial regulation that would better protect 
Americans from the financial storm they are currently struggling 
through.
  Over the past 18 months, we have learned that our regulators did not 
have the appropriate tools or knowledge to address risks that cut 
across different markets and sectors of the financial system. The 
recently passed House financial regulatory reform bill and other 
proposals take an important step in filling this huge regulatory gap by 
establishing centralized systemic risk oversight. However, any new 
regulatory structure will be ineffective unless we also equip it with a 
strong, independent, and well-funded data, research, and analytic 
capacity to fulfill its mission.
  The idea for the National Institute of Finance has been endorsed by a 
dedicated group of the Nation's top academic researchers, economists, 
and statisticians--including Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz--who 
recognize that any financial regulatory reform is incomplete without a 
much stronger data, research, and analytic capability.
  To further explore these issues, I asked the National Academy of 
Sciences in August to study the data and tools needed for systemic risk 
regulation. Among the Academy's findings: that the U.S. currently lacks 
the technical tools to monitor and manage systemic financial risk with 
sufficient comprehensiveness and precision. That market efficiency, in 
addition to regulatory capacity, would be enhanced by improved 
intelligence about what is going on in the system as a whole. And that 
existing capabilities are not a sufficient foundation for systemic risk 
management.

  The bill I introduce today addresses these significant weaknesses by 
creating the National Institute of Finance, whose mission will be to 
support the community of financial regulatory agencies by collecting 
and standardizing the reporting of financial market data; performing 
applied and essential long-term research; and developing tools for 
measuring and monitoring systemic risk.
  The Institute would house a data center that would collect, validate 
and maintain key data to perform its mission, including a central 
database to map the interconnections between financial institutions, 
along with details on their transactions and positions, and their 
valuation of their assets and liabilities. By working with banks and 
other firms to standardize the format of such data and by providing 
standard reference data, such as databases of legal entities and 
financial products, the Institute would reduce the costs to regulators 
and financial institutions from the currently fragmented and 
disorganized systems used to collect and store such information.
  Second, the Institute would contain a research and analysis center to 
develop the needed metrics and then measure and monitor systemic risk 
posed by individual firms and markets. This new Institute would house 
some of the country's most-well-respected researchers to collect and 
analyze the data needed to understand what is happening in our 
financial markets, to conduct investigations of market disruptions, and 
to work with regulators to identify new and dangerous trends.
  It would conduct and help coordinate applied research on financial 
markets and systemic risk, a field that is not well-represented right 
now at the Federal Reserve or within our other regulatory agencies. It 
would also develop the metrics and tools our regulators need to measure 
and monitor systemic risk and help policymakers by conducting studies 
and providing advice on the impact of government policies on systemic 
risk.
  Finally, the Institute would provide independent periodic reports to 
Congress on the state of the financial system, ensuring that we are 
kept apprised of the overall picture of our markets more effectively 
than we have been in the past. The domino effect caused by the 
recession will continue to cripple Rhode Island families and Americans 
across the country unless we put in place a strong new infrastructure 
and shore up our financial markets.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in strengthening our financial 
system by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S497]]

  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3005

       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 ``National 
     Institute of Finance Act of 2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States is experiencing the worst economic 
     and financial crisis since the Great Depression. The nature 
     of the current crisis is systemic. It was set in motion not 
     by the actions of any single entity, but by a loss of 
     confidence throughout the financial system as a whole.
       (2) Such catastrophic events revealed significant 
     shortcomings in the legal tools available to financial 
     policymakers. The scale and systemic nature of the crisis 
     calls for a thorough review of the United States' system of 
     financial regulation, to assess its capacity to understand, 
     monitor, and respond to systemic threats. It is critical that 
     financial regulators have the legal tools they need to act 
     quickly, decisively, effectively, and when appropriate, 
     preemptively, to prevent systemic financial crises in the 
     future and to mitigate their negative impact, should they 
     recur.
       (3) The recent catastrophic events in financial markets 
     also revealed significant gaps in the information and 
     analytic tools available to regulators and policymakers 
     charged with ensuring the health of the financial system.
       (4) Systemic risk involves interactions among financial 
     entities in addition to features of individual firms. 
     Therefore, to understand and monitor the buildup of systemic 
     risk in the financial system requires information about such 
     interactions among institutions.
       (5) Operational methods do not exist by which to measure 
     systemic risks in the United States financial system. Nor do 
     proven operational techniques exist by which regulators can 
     identify the buildup of systemic risks in the United States 
     financial system.
       (6) Regulators do not have effective methodologies for 
     assessing the effects of particular regulatory actions or 
     approaches on the overall health of the financial system.
       (7) Financial regulators do not have the data needed to map 
     the networks of counterparty relationships through which 
     systemic contagion could spread. Nor do they have the 
     analytic tools required to translate such data into useful, 
     actionable information.
       (8) Notwithstanding noteworthy efforts from the research 
     community, sustained, large-scale programs of applied 
     research and development necessary to create operational 
     systems for understanding, measuring, and monitoring systemic 
     risk in financial systems have not emerged.
       (9) There is a substantial amount of high-quality research 
     in academia in relevant disciplines, including financial 
     economics, statistics, and operations research, but such 
     research tends to focus on theoretical or conceptual 
     innovations that are not immediately reducible to operational 
     practice.
       (10) The incentives confronting academic researchers work 
     against the production of research that does not yield novel 
     theoretical insights or computational techniques.
       (11) The challenges of gaining access to data and obtaining 
     funding from government and industry for academic research 
     severely restrict the number of academics working on 
     understanding and monitoring systemic risk in the financial 
     markets.
       (12) Some of the largest commercial firms make substantial 
     investments in research and development in the area of 
     quantitative finance, but such commercial research programs 
     are targeted almost exclusively at applications that create 
     commercial value for the firms undertaking the substantial 
     investments necessary to support the programs, and focus 
     primarily on techniques for pricing particular financial 
     instruments and managing firm-specific risks.
       (13) Financial institutions that sponsor research programs 
     usually protect the results of investigations as commercial 
     trade secrets. Even those results that might be useful in 
     application to the analysis of systemic risk are generally 
     not available to the public.
       (14) No organization anywhere has access to the 
     comprehensive transaction-level data that are necessary to 
     map the network of counterparty relationships in the 
     financial system. Absent such data, it is not possible to 
     evaluate the primary counterparty risks, the extent to which 
     any given firm is vulnerable to the failure of one of its 
     counterparties, or broader counterparty network risks.
       (15) It is not possible to understand, assess, or predict 
     how the collapse of one or more institutions might set off a 
     cascade of failure that destabilizes the entire financial 
     system.
       (16) Without intelligence about the network of counterparty 
     relationships and the liquidity provided by the members of 
     the counterparty network, it is difficult even to identify 
     reliably the set of institutions that regulators should deem 
     to be systemically important.
       (17) Notwithstanding statutory mandates that call for 
     sharing of information among regulatory agencies, United 
     States financial regulators do not require that firms report 
     data in a uniform standard format. The lack of compatibility 
     in the data formats used by different agencies implies in 
     practice that agencies find it difficult and expensive to 
     integrate data from multiple sources.
       (18) In periods of financial crisis such as that 
     experienced in the 2 years preceding the date of enactment of 
     this Act, absence of data comparability becomes a critical 
     handicap, in that dispersed information cannot quickly be 
     integrated into a comprehensive framework that could help 
     reveal the condition of the financial system as a whole. 
     Without a capacity quickly to compare and integrate financial 
     data of diverse types from multiple sources, regulators are 
     unable to analyze the state of the financial system 
     accurately and comprehensively. Nor are they able to foresee, 
     and potentially head off, the onset of a financial crisis.
       (19) The events of September 2008 offer a sobering example 
     of the consequences that can flow from an inability quickly 
     to integrate financial data from diverse sources. During 
     several critical days in that month, senior Government 
     officials contemplated the possible consequences of allowing 
     the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Insofar as the 
     content of their deliberations is accessible in the public 
     record, there is little evidence that such officials had at 
     their disposal an intelligence system that could illuminate 
     the potential consequences of alternative choices. 
     Notwithstanding that the United States Government, through 
     its several agencies, collects a broad range of information 
     from financial firms, the events of September 2008 revealed 
     that, at this most critical juncture, these data and 
     accompanying analytics could not provide financial officials 
     with the information they needed.
       (20) The creation of a system for collecting and organizing 
     a comprehensive financial transaction database that employs 
     standardized formats is feasible.
       (21) The Enterprise Data Management Council, an industry 
     consortium, is on record as advocating both the feasibility 
     and desirability of bringing uniform standards to the 
     collection, reporting, and management of financial 
     transaction data.
       (22) A leading financial firm has developed for its 
     internal use a system that incorporates comprehensive 
     reference databases of all legal entities in its counterparty 
     network and of all of the many types of financial instruments 
     in which it transacts. Using the system, the firm can compute 
     its exposure to many of their counterparties within an hour.
       (23) A leading information technology firm has developed a 
     prototype of an operational system that would support a 
     comprehensive database of financial instruments and 
     transactions across the entire economy, and in collaboration 
     with other private sector firms and public sector entities, 
     is in the process of developing a prototype system for 
     maintaining the needed system-wide reference databases.
       (24) The community of financial regulators can realize 
     substantial benefits by consolidating into one entity the 
     highly technical tasks of establishing and maintaining 
     uniform standards for reporting financial data, organizing 
     and managing high-volume flows of financial data, providing 
     analytic and high performance computational services, 
     performing applied research and development activities, and 
     conducting, coordinating, and sponsoring essential long term, 
     fundamental research in the field of financial analysis and 
     regulatory intelligence.
       (25) Such technical tasks benefit from increasing economies 
     of scale, the total cost of providing such services to the 
     regulatory community promises to be lower if one agency is 
     tasked to provide all of such data, instead of creating 
     redundant and less effective units in each of the several 
     financial regulatory agencies.
       (26) An entity that provides access to data and analytic 
     tools to all regulatory agencies on a common basis would help 
     to ensure that all agencies are receiving accurate, 
     consistent, comparable data and analytic tools that can be 
     modified for agency-specific needs.
       (27) The creation of an entity that creates shared data and 
     analytic services will provide a natural and regular vehicle 
     for the exchange of research and collaboration between 
     regulatory agencies.
       (28) The emergence of uniform standards for referencing and 
     reporting financial transactions would generate substantial 
     benefits for the financial services industry. There is, at 
     present, no consistent, comprehensive, and universal system 
     for coding, transmitting, and storing financial transaction 
     data. Data reside typically in unconnected databases and 
     spreadsheets, using multiple formats and inconsistent 
     definitions. The routine conduct of business obliges firms to 
     incur substantial costs to translate and transfer data among 
     otherwise incompatible systems. In addition, this data 
     incomparability impedes the ability of companies to assess 
     their risks accurately. The adoption of a common language for 
     data coding and handling would dramatically reduce costs for 
     processing transactions and carrying out other administrative 
     tasks. Standardized reporting would also enable firms to map 
     their counterparty relationships more clearly and more easily 
     understand their

[[Page S498]]

     credit exposures to other firms, a development that promises 
     improvements in risk management practices across the 
     industry.
       (29) In August 2008, the Counterparty Risk Management 
     Policy Group called for the financial industry to move 
     rapidly toward real-time reconciliation and confirmation of 
     financial transactions. Industry experts believe that this 
     change would yield substantial benefits to firms 
     individually, to the financial services industry, and to the 
     economy as a whole. Achieving this goal would not be 
     possible, however, without industry-wide adoption of common 
     standards for coding and handling financial transaction data. 
     Despite the clear benefits of data standardization and 
     despite years of effort by the industry, through consortia 
     such as the Enterprise Data Management Council, the financial 
     services industry has not been able to make meaningful 
     progress towards the goal of universal adoption of uniform, 
     consistent standards for data handling.
       (30) Efforts to see a common set of standards for financial 
     data adopted universally are impeded by so-called ``network 
     effects''. The benefits of adoption for any one firm depend 
     on the extent to which other firms adopt the same common 
     language. For any one institution, the full benefits are 
     distinctly limited until a critical number of participants in 
     the industry adopt the same standards. In light of these 
     network effects, the adoption of a single data handling 
     standard by all industry participants presents a daunting 
     coordination challenge. Each individual firm is discouraged 
     from making the substantial investments required to upgrade 
     its own systems, unless and until they receive assurance that 
     others in the industry will follow suit. Many firms are 
     deferring significant upgrades to their systems until well-
     defined industry-wide standards are accepted.
       (31) The financial services industry's historical 
     experience strongly suggests that the industry is unlikely to 
     achieve universal adoption of a single data-handling standard 
     on its own initiative, through either the decentralized 
     actions of industry participants or through voluntary 
     coordination at the urging of industry consortia or trade 
     associations. Standardization of financial data will require 
     an external mandate.
       (32) The new data standards promulgated for reporting by 
     firms will emerge as the de facto standard for data 
     management in the finance industry, a standard on which firms 
     could converge. Firms could then be confident of realizing a 
     significant return on the investment needed to update their 
     internal systems, knowing that other industry participants 
     were doing likewise.
       (33) The establishment of Federal requirements for the 
     maintenance and provision of reference databases and 
     reporting of transactions and position data to a central 
     repository would assure individual institutions of a 
     significant return on the investment needed to update their 
     internal systems. Firms would benefit from not having to 
     maintain their own unique reference databases, standardized 
     reporting would greatly reduce the cost of reconciling trades 
     and other back office activities, and it would give firms a 
     clear map of their counterparty relationships, which would 
     facilitate better risk management across the industry.
       (34) Once achieved, the universal adoption of standard 
     protocols for handling financial transaction data promises to 
     generate significant and sustained improvements in the 
     efficiency and productivity of the financial services 
     industry in the United States. Such improvements will help to 
     secure and maintain the international leadership position of 
     United States capital markets.
       (35) United States regulators must never again find 
     themselves confronting a financial crisis without the full 
     set of legal, data, and analytic tools they need to 
     understand, measure, monitor, and respond intelligently to 
     systemic risks that threaten the stability (of the United 
     States financial system.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that the financial regulatory community is 
     equipped fully with the data and analytic tools it needs to 
     fulfill its responsibility to safeguard the United States 
     financial system;
       (2) to reduce the likelihood of another systemic financial 
     crisis occurring;
       (3) to restore integrity and confidence to the financial 
     markets of the United States;
       (4) to provide for the security of the United States 
     economy from potential external threats to the United States 
     financial system;
       (5) to improve the efficiency of the financial markets in 
     the United States;
       (6) to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of 
     coordinated financial regulation in the United States;
       (7) to help maintain the leadership position of the United 
     States as home to the most efficient, competitive, and 
     productive capital markets in the world; and
       (8) to help restore and maintain conditions in the United 
     States financial system that will support the creation of 
     wealth and prosperity in the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Financial regulatory agency.--The term ``financial 
     regulatory agency'' means any Federal regulatory agency or 
     body charged with regulating, examining, or supervising a 
     financial entity or activity, including any financial 
     systemic risk council or agency established by Congress.
       (2) Institute; director; board of directors.--The terms 
     ``Institute'', ``Director'', and ``Board of Directors'' mean 
     the National Institute of Finance, the Director thereof, and 
     the Board of Directors thereof, respectively.
       (3) Financial entity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``financial entity'' means any 
     corporation, partnership, individual, or other organizational 
     form, whether public or private, used to engage in any type 
     of financial activity that may contribute to systemic risk, 
     including any bank, savings association, credit union, 
     industrial loan company, trust, pension fund, holding 
     company, lender, finance company, mortgage broker, broker-
     dealer, mutual fund or other investment company, investment 
     adviser, hedge fund, insurance company, clearinghouse or 
     other central counterparty, exchange, and any other entity or 
     institution that the Director determines, at the formation of 
     the Institute, are necessary for the Institute to complete 
     its duties under this Act.
       (B) Director authority.--The Director may, by rule, add new 
     types of entities or institutions to be treated as financial 
     entities for purposes of this Act.
       (4) Systemic risk.--The term ``systemic risk'' means the 
     risk that a failure or default by a financial entity or 
     entities, or exposures to a financial product or products or 
     activity will produce--
       (A) significant disruptions to the operations of financial 
     markets;
       (B) the spreading of financial losses and failures through 
     the financial system; or
       (C) significant disruption to the broader economy.
       (5) Financial contract.--The term ``financial contract'' 
     mean a legally binding agreement between 2 or more 
     counterparties, describing rights, and obligations relating 
     to the future delivery of items of intrinsic or extrinsic 
     value among the counterparties.
       (6) Financial instrument.--The term ``financial 
     instrument'' means a financial contract in which the terms 
     and conditions are publicly available, and the roles of 1 or 
     more of the counterparties are assignable without the consent 
     of any of the other counterparties, including common stock of 
     a publicly traded company, government bonds, and exchange 
     traded futures and options contracts.
       (7) Financial entity reference database.--The term 
     ``financial entity reference database'' means a comprehensive 
     list of financial entities that may be counterparties to 
     financial transactions or referenced in the contractual 
     structure of a financial instrument. For each financial 
     entity, the database shall include, but not be limited to a 
     unique identifier, and sufficient information to 
     differentiate the entity from every other entity, including 
     an exact legal name and an address for each company, and an 
     exact legal name and a social security number for each 
     American citizen. For financial entities that are legally 
     owned by or otherwise contained within other financial 
     entities, the database shall include such information.
       (8) Financial instrument reference database.--The term 
     ``financial instrument reference database'' means a 
     comprehensive list of unique financial instruments. For each 
     financial instrument, the database shall include a unique 
     identifier and a comprehensive description of the contractual 
     structure of the instrument as well as all express terms 
     governing the interpretation and implementation of the 
     contract, including jurisdiction, force majeure, and dispute 
     resolution. The contractual structure shall include the 
     financial and economic obligations and rights, both express 
     and implied, and including through legal agreements such as 
     netting agreements, established among all of the 
     counterparties having identified roles in the contract, 
     including advisors, principals, trustees, custodians, 
     guarantors, prime brokers, executing brokers, clearing 
     brokers, and issuers of securities. An electronic copy of the 
     prospectus for each financial instrument for which a 
     prospectus was created or distributed shall also be contained 
     in the database.
       (9) Financial transaction data.--The term ``financial 
     transaction'' means the explicit or implicit creation of a 
     financial contract where at least one of the counterparties 
     is required to report to the Institute. The data describing 
     the transaction shall include the structure of the contract 
     created in the transaction, as well as all express terms 
     governing the interpretation and implementation of the 
     contract, including jurisdiction, force majeure, and dispute 
     resolution. The contractual structure shall include clearly 
     identified counterparties, clearly identified financial 
     instruments (when used as part of the structure of the 
     contract), and the financial and economic obligations and 
     rights, both express and implied, established among all of 
     the counterparties with identified roles in the contract.
       (10) Position data.--The term ``position'' means a 
     financial asset or liability held on the balance sheet of a 
     financial entity. A new position is created, or the quantity 
     of an existing position is changed, by the execution of a 
     financial transaction involving the financial entity as a 
     counterparty. Position data include--
       (A) the counterparty identifier;
       (B) a contract identifier;
       (C) the role of the counterparty on the transaction;
       (D) a quantity, if applicable;
       (E) a location, if applicable; and

[[Page S499]]

       (F) the valuation of the position for the purposes of the 
     books and records of the financial entity.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FINANCE; 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established the National 
     Institute of Finance, which shall be an independent 
     establishment, as that term is defined in section 104 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Mission.--The mission of the Institute is to support 
     the Federal financial regulatory agencies, including any 
     systemic risk council or agency established by Congress, by--
       (A) collecting and providing data;
       (B) standardizing the types and formats of data reported 
     and collected;
       (C) performing applied research and essential long-term 
     research;
       (D) developing tools for risk measurement and monitoring;
       (E) performing other related services; and
       (F) making the results of its activities available to 
     financial regulatory agencies.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Institute shall be headed by a 
     Director, who shall be appointed by the President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (2) Term of service.--The Director shall serve for a term 
     of 15 years.
       (3) Executive level and pension.--The position of the 
     Director shall be at level II of the Executive Schedule, and 
     a Director who serves a full term, or becomes disabled and 
     unable to fulfill the responsibilities of the Director after 
     serving at least 10 years, shall receive a pension at 
     retirement equal to the salary of that person in the last 
     year of the term, and that pension shall increase in 
     subsequent years with the increase in the cost of living.
       (4) Vacancy.--In the event that a successor is not 
     nominated and confirmed by the end of the term of service of 
     a Director, the Director may continue to serve until such 
     time as the new Director is appointed and confirmed.
       (5) Prohibition on dual service.--The individual serving in 
     the position of Director may not, during such service, also 
     serve as the head of any financial regulatory agency.
       (6) Responsibilities, duties and authority.--The Director 
     shall have sole discretion to fulfill the responsibilities 
     and duties and exercise the authorities described in this 
     Act, except in cases where specific authorities have been 
     given to the Board of Directors.
       (c) Board of Directors.--The Board of Directors of the 
     Institute shall be comprised of the Director, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, and the head of each financial regulatory 
     agency.
       (d) Membership of the Director on the Board of Directors.--
     The Director shall serve as a voting member of the Board of 
     Directors and as a member of any financial systemic risk 
     regulatory council or agency established by Congress.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Annual budget.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     Board of Directors shall establish the initial annual budget. 
     For all other annual budgets, the Director shall submit an 
     annual budget for the Institute to the Board of Directors not 
     later than April 30 of each year. The Board of Directors may, 
     without amendment, reject the budget with a two-thirds 
     majority vote. Each time a budget is rejected, the Director 
     shall submit a revised budget to the Board of Directors 
     within 60 days, and the Board of Directors may, without 
     amendment, reject the budget with a two-thirds majority vote. 
     If the Board of Directors fails to reject the budget within 
     60 days of submission by the Director, the budget shall be 
     automatically approved. If a new budget is not approved 
     before the existing budget expires, the most recent approved 
     budget shall continue on a pro rata basis. Each submitted 
     budget and all votes by the Board of Directors on each budget 
     shall be part of the public record of the Board of Directors.
       (2) Assessments.--The Institute shall be funded through 
     assessments on the financial entities required to report data 
     to the Institute. The formula by which the budgetary costs 
     are allocated among the reporting entities shall be 
     determined by the Board of Directors. If the Board of 
     Directors fails to establish the formula within 60 days of 
     submission of a budget by the Director, the Director shall 
     determine the formula by which the budgetary costs are 
     allocated among the reporting entities for that year.
       (3) Initial funding and start up.--During the first 4 years 
     of the operation of the Institute, the Institute shall have 
     authority to borrow against future assessment revenue from 
     the Federal Financing Bank. Such borrowed funds shall be paid 
     back to the Federal Financing Bank over a term not to exceed 
     20 years. The Secretary of the Treasury, and any financial 
     regulatory agency, may second personnel to the Institute to 
     assist the operations of the Institute.
       (f) Excepted Service Agency.--The Institute shall be an 
     excepted service agency.
       (g) Personnel.--The Board of Directors may fix the 
     compensation of Institute personnel, without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates. The rates of pay 
     and benefits shall be competitive with and comparable to the 
     rates of pay and benefits at Federal financial regulatory 
     agencies that are not covered by title 5, United States Code.
       (h) Non-Compete.--The Director and staff of the Institute, 
     who have had access to the transaction or position data 
     maintained by the Data Center or other business confidential 
     information about financial entities required to report to 
     the Institute, may not, for a period of 1 year after last 
     having access to such transaction or position data or 
     business confidential information, be employed by or provide 
     advice or consulting services to a financial entity, 
     regardless of whether it is required to report to the 
     Institute. Individual staff members who notify the Director 
     of their intention to terminate their employment with the 
     Institute and to seek employment with a prohibited employer 
     or in a prohibited activity, shall be transferred for a 
     period of 12 months to a position that does not provide 
     access to transaction or position data or other business 
     confidential information. For staff whose access to business 
     confidential information was limited, the Board of Directors 
     may provide, on a case-by-case basis, for a shorter period of 
     post-employment prohibition, provided that the shorter period 
     does not compromise business confidential information.
       (i) Advisory Boards.--The Institute shall maintain any 
     advisory boards that the Director determines are needed to 
     complete the mission of the Institute.
       (j) Fellowship Program.--The Institute may establish and 
     maintain an academic and professional fellowship program, 
     under which qualified academics and professionals shall be 
     invited to spend not longer than 2 years at the Institute, to 
     perform research and to provide advanced training for 
     Institute personnel.
       (k) Executive Schedule Matters.--Section 5312 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Director of the National Institute of Finance.''.

     SEC. 5. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE; RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRIMARY 
                   PROGRAMMATIC UNITS.

       (a) In General.--The Institute shall carry out its 
     programmatic responsibilities through--
       (1) the Federal Financial Data Center (in this Act referred 
     to as the `` `Data Center' ''); and
       (2) the Federal Financial Research and Analysis Center (in 
     this Act referred to as the `` `Research Center' '').
       (b) Federal Financial Data Center.--
       (1) General duties.--The Data Center shall collect, 
     validate, and maintain all data necessary to carry out its 
     duties, as described in this Act.
       (2) Responsibilities.--The Data Center shall prepare and 
     publish, in a manner that is easily accessible to the 
     public--
       (A) a financial entity reference database;
       (B) a financial instrument reference database; and
       (C) formats and standards for reporting financial 
     transaction and position data to the Institute.
       (3) Data to be collected.--Data referred to in paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) shall include for each financial entity--
       (i) comprehensive financial transaction data on a schedule 
     determined by the Director;
       (ii) comprehensive position data on a schedule determined 
     by the Director;
       (iii) for each financial instrument in the financial 
     instrument reference database or for any other obligation of 
     a financial entity that is contingent on the value of an 
     observable event, where the observable event is not widely 
     available to the public, the level and changes in the level 
     of these observable events, on a schedule determined by the 
     Director; and
       (iv) any other data that are considered by the Director to 
     be important for measuring and monitoring systemic risk, or 
     for determining the soundness of individual financial 
     entities; and
       (B) may include data regarding policies and procedures, 
     governance, incentives, compensation practices, contractual 
     relationships, and any other information deemed by the 
     Director to be necessary in order for the Institute to carry 
     out its responsibilities under this Act; and
       (C) the Board of Directors may, by a two-thirds vote, 
     exclude financial entities, which, as a group, will not 
     contribute to systemic risk for reasons such as size, nature 
     of their assets and liabilities, volume of transactions, or 
     other reasonable purposes, from reporting data. 
     Notwithstanding such exclusions, financial entities shall 
     comply with all reporting requirements or ensure that 
     reporting requirements are met for any assets or part of 
     their balance sheets that are sold to create a financial 
     instrument or obligation, as described in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii).
       (4) Information security.--The Director and the Board of 
     Directors shall ensure that data collected and maintained by 
     the Data Center are kept secure and protected against 
     unauthorized disclosure.
       (5) Catalogue of financial entities and instruments.--The 
     Data Center shall maintain a catalogue of the financial 
     entities and instruments reported to the Institute.
       (6) Availability to the financial regulatory agencies.--The 
     Data Center shall make data collected and maintained by the 
     Data Center available to any financial regulatory agency 
     represented on the Board of Directors, as needed to support 
     the regulatory responsibilities of such agency.
       (7) Other responsibilities.--The Data Center shall oversee 
     the management of the

[[Page S500]]

     data supply chain, from the point of issuance, in order to 
     ensure the quality of all data required to be submitted to 
     the Institute.
       (8) Other authority.--The Institute shall, after 
     consultation with the Board of Directors provide certain data 
     to financial industry participants and the general public to 
     increase market transparency and facilitate research on the 
     financial system, so long as intellectual property rights are 
     not violated, business confidential information is properly 
     protected, and the sharing of such information poses no 
     significant threats to the financial system.
       (c) Federal Financial Research and Analysis Center.--
       (1) General duties.--The Research Center shall develop and 
     maintain the independent analytical capabilities and 
     computing resources--
       (A) to measure and monitor systemic risk;
       (B) to perform independent risk assessments of individual 
     financial entities and markets;
       (C) to analyze and investigate relationships between the 
     soundness of individual financial entities and markets and 
     the soundness of the financial system together as a whole; 
     and
       (D) to provide advice on the financial system.
       (2) Responsibilities.--The Research Center shall--
       (A) develop and maintain metrics and risk reporting systems 
     for system-wide risk;
       (B) develop and maintain metrics and risk reporting systems 
     for determining the soundness of financial entities;
       (C) monitor, investigate, and report changes in system-wide 
     risk levels and patterns to the Board of Directors and 
     Congress, including through the collection of additional 
     information that the Director deems necessary to understand 
     such changes;
       (D) conduct, coordinate, and sponsor research to support 
     and improve regulation of financial entities and markets;
       (E) benchmark financial risk management practices and 
     promote best practices for financial risk management;
       (F) at the direction of the Board of Directors, or any 
     member of the Board of Directors, for firms under that 
     member's purview, develop, oversee, and report on stress 
     tests or other tests of the valuation and risk management 
     systems of any of the financial entities required to report 
     to the Institute;
       (G) maintain expertise in such areas as may be necessary to 
     support specific requests for advice and assistance from 
     financial regulators;
       (H) at the direction of the Board of Directors or at the 
     request of Congress, conduct studies and provide advice on 
     financial markets and products, including advice regarding 
     risks to consumers posed by financial products and practices;
       (I) at the direction of the Director, at the discretion of 
     the Board of Directors, or at the request of Congress, 
     investigate disruptions and failures in the financial 
     markets, report findings, and make recommendations to the 
     Board of Directors and Congress; and
       (J) at the direction of the Board of Directors or at the 
     request of Congress, conduct studies and provide advice on 
     the impact of policies related to systemic risk.
       (d) Reporting Responsibilities.--
       (1) Required report.--Commencing 2 years after the date of 
     the establishment of the Institute, the Institute shall 
     prepare and submit an annual report to Congress, not later 
     than 120 days after the end of each fiscal year.
       (2) Content.--The report required by this subsection shall 
     assess the state of the financial system, including an 
     analysis of any threats to the financial system, the status 
     of the Institute's efforts in meeting its mission, and key 
     findings from its research and analysis of the financial 
     system.
       (3) Additional reports.--At the sole discretion of the 
     Director, the Director may initiate and provide additional 
     reports to Congress regarding the state of the financial 
     system. The Director shall notify the Board of Directors of 
     any additional reports provided to Congress.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES OF THE INSTITUTE.

       The Institute may--
       (1) require financial entities to report all data and 
     information in conformance with reporting standards, as 
     determined by the Institute, that are necessary to fulfill 
     the responsibilities of the Institute under this Act;
       (2) require reporting on a worldwide basis from the 
     financial entities and affiliates thereof that are organized 
     in the United States;
       (3) require reporting of United States-based activities by 
     financial entities that are not organized in the United 
     States;
       (4) enforce and apply sanctions on all financial entities 
     required to report to the Institute that fail to report data 
     requested by and in standards, frequency, and time frames, as 
     determined by rule or regulation by the Institute;
       (5) share data and information, as well as software 
     developed by the Institute, with other financial regulatory 
     agencies, as determined appropriate by the Board of 
     Directors, where the shared data and software shall be 
     maintained with at least the same level of security as is 
     used by the Institute, and may not be shared with any 
     individuals or entities without the permission of the Board 
     of Directors;
       (6) purchase and lease software;
       (7) sponsor and conduct research projects; and
       (8) assist, on a reimbursable basis, with financial 
     analyses undertaken at the request of governmental agencies, 
     other than financial regulatory agencies.

     SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       Any person or entity that violates this Act or fails to 
     comply with a rule, regulation, or order of the Institute 
     issued under this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty in 
     an amount established by the Institute and published in the 
     Code of Federal Regulations. Each such violation or failure 
     shall constitute a separate civil offense.

                          ____________________