[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 16 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S545-S551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts:
S. 262. A bill to repeal the excise tax on medical device
manufacturers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation to repeal the tax imposed on medical device manufacturers.
As my colleagues know, this 2.3 percent sales tax imposed on medical
device manufacturers--a tax that will ultimately be passed on to
consumers--is part-and-parcel of the Federal health care reform bill
that passed last Congress.
Like others in this chamber, I am extremely concerned that this tax
could threaten jobs in my State, reduce domestic investment in research
and development and ultimately diminish access to life-saving medical
devices for patients.
Medical technology companies employ more than 375,000 workers in the
United States. In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 225 medical
device firms, which employ more than 20,000 workers, and contribute
nearly $1 billion in payroll. Medical devices are one of our State's
top exports, contributing $6 billion to our State's economy.
These are powerfully good numbers. These are the numbers that make my
State tick, help drive our economy, and keep people working. I want to
make certain that what happens in Washington does not reverse these
numbers, does not undermine my State's ability to compete, and does not
hamper our chances to grow and hire workers.
Massachusetts' position as an industry leader, a hub of innovation
and entrepreneurship must be preserved. That has been and will continue
to be my focus in the U.S. Senate.
So how do I intend to accomplish this?
For starters it means working to eliminate the medical device tax,
which I believe will diminish our ability to compete, will increase
costs for consumers, and could result in our medical device and
technology jobs being sent overseas, where the costs of labor and
production are cheaper.
The effort that I am spearheading--and that I ask my colleagues to
join--eliminates the medical device tax in a way that does not add to
the deficit. I propose eliminating this harmful tax--a tax that will
stifle innovation, be passed on to consumers, and increase the cost of
care--and propose that we offset the cost by using unobligated
discretionary dollars. This is the same source of funding, the same
offset, that 81 of my colleagues supported yesterday.
As my colleagues know, I worked on an amendment that would repeal the
medical device tax last Congress. I will continue this work because the
harmful effects of this tax are the last thing Massachusetts needs--
more industry jobs lost, our workers at a competitive disadvantage.
But the medical device tax doesn't just lead to job uncertainty, it
leads to investment uncertainty as well, which results in private
capital staying on the sidelines rather than being invested in
Massachusetts based companies and their workers.
The medical device tax, coupled with other provisions in the Federal
health reform bill, increases the level of uncertainty at a time when
businesses, consumers and investors are craving the exact opposite.
For example, some medical devices are approved as combination
products, both as medical devices and drugs and/or biologics. The
Secretary has yet to determine how these medical devices will be
captured under the law, how they will be taxed.
I pledge to work with my Senate colleagues--and during the Medical
Device User Fee Modernization Act reauthorization slated for next
year--to ensure that the medical device companies whose products are
approved as combination products by the FDA are not double-taxed by way
of the medical device tax and the pharmaceutical tax.
With the rolling implementation of the Federal health care reform
bill, this Congress will provide many opportunities for me to protect
the interests of and work on behalf of Massachusetts families,
Massachusetts taxpayers,
[[Page S546]]
Massachusetts workers, and Massachusetts businesses.
I hope my colleagues will join my efforts to find opportunities to
correct what is wrong with the Federal health reform law--to protect
innovation, the jobs, and the development and growth that can occur in
a sector that is vitally important to our Nation's health.
I know that a robust medical device sector translates into a
healthier America--physically, economically, and socially. The same is
true for Massachusetts.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 270. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain Federal land to Deschutes County, Oregon; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills
that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the
means to promote their cultural history and their economic development
opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress
and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be
joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.
These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in
my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the
abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural
communities in my State and in many places in the Western United
States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement.
In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these
small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high
percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of
local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the
public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an
active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's
quality of life.
That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation
today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications--
demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government
partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging
economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership.
My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two
parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to
the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land
Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to
enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian
facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or
other public facilities.
La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation
has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if
they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.
My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to
the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and
rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In
addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball
fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the
town grows and budgets allow.
My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM
lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's
wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the
City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was
not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be
competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project
is too important to let languish.
Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes
County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from
household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region
around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into
south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of
the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems
are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by
closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a
relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged
not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation
today to make sure this transfer moves forward.
The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation
would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a
parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring
its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space.
My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound
Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service Ranger Station
compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, this Forest
Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the
1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this site
continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of
Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along
with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad
group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of
Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times,
making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The
conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward
with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station
on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City
will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a
vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment
depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a
significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that
will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is
developed as an interpretive center.
I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders
who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects.
They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.
______
By Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota):
S. 274. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
expand access to medication therapy management services under the
Medicare prescription drug program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to reintroduce the
Medication Therapy Management, MTM, Empowerment Act of 2011, with my
colleagues from Minnesota, Senator Franken, from Ohio, Senator Brown,
and from South Dakota, Senator Johnson.
A recent analysis conducted by the New England Healthcare Institute
estimates that the overall cost of medication nonadherence is as much
as $290 billion per year. According to a recent article published in
the New England Journal of Medicine, over $100 billion is spent
annually on avoidable hospitalizations because patients do not take
their medications correctly.
Not only does nonadherence cost our system billions of dollars,
nonadherence to medication regimens also affects the quality of life
for seniors and may lead to early death. The elderly typically take
many more prescription medicines than the general population and
therefore are at greater risk for problems associated with improper use
of medications. For example, the same New England Journal of Medicine
article I just referenced found that better adherence to
antihypertensive treatment alone could prevent 89,000 premature deaths
in the U.S. annually.
With as much as one half of all patients in the U.S. not following
their doctors' orders regarding their medications, medication therapy
management could help reduce some of the wasted health care costs in
our system.
North Carolina has implemented some very successful MTM programs.
The Asheville Project, which focuses on diabetes, asthma, and
cardiovascular disease, has seen improved
[[Page S547]]
health outcomes and significant savings among city employees since it
began in 1997. For example, in the Asheville Project's diabetes MTM
Project, they have seen a decrease in medical costs of between $1,622
to $3,356 per patient per year; a decrease in insurance claims of
$2,704 per patient in year one and a $6,502 decrease in year five; a 50
percent decrease in use of sick days; and increased productivity gains
estimated at $18,000 annually.
In 2007, the North Carolina Health and Wellness Trust Fund Commission
launched an innovative statewide program, Checkmeds NC, to provide MTM
services to North Carolina seniors. During the program's first year,
more than 15,000 North Carolina seniors and 285 pharmacists
participated. A total of 31,000 seniors have participated since 2007.
The seniors bring all of their prescriptions, over-the-counter
medicines, vitamins and supplements to the pharmacy to be thoroughly
reviewed in a one-on-one session. The pharmacist follows up and
educates the patient about his or her medication regimen. The program
has saved an estimated $34 million to date, and countless health
problems have been avoided.
During consideration of health care reform, I was pleased to have
successfully secured language in the bill that built off these North
Carolina models and implemented MTM nationally for seniors suffering
from two or more chronic conditions.
The bill I am reintroducing today takes MTM one step further.
Specifically, this bill would expand MTM eligibility to seniors with
any chronic condition that accounts for high spending in our health
care system, such as heart failure and diabetes. Currently, only 12.9
percent of Part D beneficiaries are eligible under the MTM criteria for
multiple chronic conditions. However, of those, more than 85 percent
have chosen to participate in the benefit. Clearly this program is very
popular and widely utilized by those who are already eligible. By
expanding eligibility to more seniors, MTM will certainly result in
Medicare savings.
The bill also ensures access to MTM for seniors at a pharmacy or with
a qualified health care provider of their choice.
To ensure pharmacists and health care providers are able to provide
MTM to seniors, this bill requires that they are appropriately
reimbursed for their time and service. This provision will permit
pharmacies and other health care providers to spend considerable time
and resources evaluating a person's drug routine and educating them on
proper usage--all critical components of a successful MTM program.
Finally, this bill would establish standards for data collection to
evaluate and improve the Part D MTM benefit.
The value of MTM is widely known and discussed. I am proud that North
Carolina is a leader in this arena. Expansion of MTM to more seniors
will no doubt improve their overall health, while at the same time
reducing waste in our health care system.
I urge my collegues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet):
S. 278. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land located in
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious
business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we
experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire,
near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over
6,000 acres.
We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of
hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from
local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often
risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do
everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who
serve them.
One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire
District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is
critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being
able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up
trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years
now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire
District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.
The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on
these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the
lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training.
The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an
undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under
the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the
public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire
threats.
The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith
effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative
means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire
District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by
expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy
the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.
However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident
that legislation is required to resolve the situation.
To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar
Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the
same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
in the last Congress.
Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District
offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land
amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the
communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of
Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National
Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire
stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.
The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.
This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the
Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands
bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire
district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve
an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this
bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.
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. 278
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 ``Sugar Loaf Fire Protection
District Land Exchange Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Sugar Loaf
Fire Protection District of Boulder, Colorado.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) the parcel of approximately 1.52 acres of land in the
National Forest that is generally depicted on the map
numbered 1, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District
Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009; and
(B) the parcel of approximately 3.56 acres of land in the
National Forest that is generally depicted on the map
numbered 2, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District
Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009.
(3) National forest.--The term ``National Forest'' means
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests located in the State
of Colorado.
(4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcel of approximately 5.17 acres of non-Federal land in
unincorporated Boulder County, Colorado, that is generally
depicted on the map numbered 3, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire
Protection District Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated
November 12, 2009.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.
(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, if
the District offers to convey to the Secretary all right,
title, and interest of the District in and to the non-Federal
land, and the offer is acceptable to the Secretary--
[[Page S548]]
(1) the Secretary shall accept the offer; and
(2) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land,
the Secretary shall convey to the District all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
(b) Applicable Law.--Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) shall apply to
the land exchange authorized under subsection (a), except
that--
(1) the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment in
excess of 25 percent of the value of the Federal land; and
(2) as a condition of the land exchange under subsection
(a), the District shall--
(A) pay each cost relating to any land surveys and
appraisals of the Federal land and non-Federal land; and
(B) enter into an agreement with the Secretary that
allocates any other administrative costs between the
Secretary and the District.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The land exchange
under subsection (a) shall be subject to--
(1) valid existing rights; and
(2) any terms and conditions that the Secretary may
require.
(d) Time for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the intent
of Congress that the land exchange under subsection (a) shall
be completed not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Authority of Secretary To Conduct Sale of Federal
Land.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), if the
land exchange under subsection (a) is not completed by the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary may offer to sell to the District the Federal
land.
(2) Value of federal land.--The Secretary may offer to sell
to the District the Federal land for the fair market value of
the Federal land.
(f) Disposition of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit in the fund
established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the
``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a) any amount received by the
Secretary as the result of--
(A) any cash equalization payment made under subsection
(b); and
(B) any sale carried out under subsection (e).
(2) Use of proceeds.--Amounts deposited under paragraph (1)
shall be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation and until expended, for the acquisition of land
or interests in land in the National Forest.
(g) Management and Status of Acquired Land.--The non-
Federal land acquired by the Secretary under this section
shall be--
(1) added to, and administered as part of, the National
Forest; and
(2) managed by the Secretary in accordance with--
(A) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the ``Weeks
Law'') (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and
(B) any laws (including regulations) applicable to the
National Forest.
(h) Revocation of Orders; Withdrawal.--
(1) Revocation of orders.--Any public order withdrawing the
Federal land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the
public land laws is revoked to the extent necessary to permit
the conveyance of the Federal land to the District.
(2) Withdrawal.--On the date of enactment of this Act, if
not already withdrawn or segregated from entry and
appropriation under the public land laws (including the
mining and mineral leasing laws) and the Geothermal Steam Act
of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal land is
withdrawn until the date of the conveyance of the Federal
land to the District.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet):
S. 279. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a
study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp
Hale as a unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp
Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp
Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is
an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it
deserves to be recognized and protected.
This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II
and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central
Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and
mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the
Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed
Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high-
altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley
suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was
located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training
boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.
In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat
Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were
trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army
tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.
Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central
Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in
guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous
country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place
a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of
those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a
moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.
In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the
lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the
White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left
over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.
Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in
1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the
suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit
of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the
significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation
during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale
for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the
Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the
Chinese occupation of Tibet.
I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first
introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly
cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last
Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators
to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on
the Senate floor.
Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our
country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of
their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in
supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more
success in passing this legislation in this Congress.
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. 279
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 ``Camp Hale Study Act''.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND
FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING CAMP HALE AS A UNIT
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the National Park Service,
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall complete
a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine--
(1) the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp
Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System; and
(2) the methods and means for the protection and
interpretation of Camp Hale by the National Park Service,
other Federal, State, or local government entities or private
or nonprofit organizations.
(b) Study Requirements.--The Secretary shall conduct the
study in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383
(16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).
(c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a report containing--
(1) the results of the study; and
(2) any recommendations of the Secretary.
SEC. 3. EFFECT OF STUDY.
Nothing in this Act shall affect valid existing rights or
the exercise of such rights, including--
(1) all interstate water compacts in existence on the date
of the enactment of this Act (including full development of
any apportionment made in accordance with the compacts);
[[Page S549]]
(2) water rights decreed at the Camp Hale site or flowing
within, below, or through the Camp Hale site;
(3) water rights in the State of Colorado;
(4) water rights held by the United States;
(5) the management and operation of any reservoir,
including the storage, management, release, or transportation
of water; and
(6) the ability, subject to compliance with lawful existing
local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, to
construct and operate that infrastructure determined
necessary by those with decreed water rights to develop and
place to beneficial use such rights.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 280. A bill to provide for flexibility and improvements in
elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child
Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined
in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our
legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine
and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind
Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while
retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability.
Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity
to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with
the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I
commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation
issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our
task force included members from every county in our State, and had
superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents,
business leaders, former State legislators, special education
specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of
Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education
and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and
Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that
brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the
task force's work.
After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final
report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory
changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need
for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local
schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing
Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant
statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine
and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts,
not just Maine.
First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in
the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education
standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our
legislation would permit states to use additional models to more
accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically,
it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the
progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit
the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on
the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a
``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of
students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable
to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school
would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates
improved student achievement according to these additional models. We
would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to
give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems.
While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable,
our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater
flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided
that they are consistent with the principle of improved student
performance.
Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice
regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to
identify and work with a particular group of students before being
identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to
allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The
changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts
and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend
to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation
addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all
schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the
Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting
this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line
as necessary.
Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in
some schools, special education students fear that they are being
blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our
legislation would allow the members of a special education student's
Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment
for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance
on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative
change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many
times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student
to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or
she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred
for special education services precisely because they cannot meet
grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best
test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement
to the act while still ensuring accountability.
Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers
of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet
the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the
current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural
schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on
special education teachers who work with students on a variety of
subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers
are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided
additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining
requirements.
While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its
report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation
is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense
modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine.
Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each
and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every
classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every
school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization
process.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 289. A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the FISA Amendments Act of
2008 until December 31, 2013, and for other purposes; read the first
time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 25, I introduced S. 149,
the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring
provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority
to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,''
``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. S. 149
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Today, I am reintroducing that legislation with a new, identical
bill. This new bill, just as S. 149 would do, will extend these three
authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31,
2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence
collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so
they, too, last until the end of 2013.
The sole purpose of reintroducing the measure is to begin the process
under Senate rule XIV to place the reintroduced extension bill on the
Senate calendar. The three provisions of FISA
[[Page S550]]
will sunset in a little more than 3 weeks. One of those weeks is a
congressional recess. By placing the extension bill on the Senate
calendar, we will, at least, be one procedural step closer to acting.
On January 28, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper wrote to urge Congress to grant a
reauthorization of sufficient duration to provide intelligence and law
enforcement agencies with reasonable certainty and predictability
concerning the tools available to them.
The FISA sunsets have most recently been the subject of two short-
term extensions: a 2-month extension from December 31, 2009 to February
28, 2010, and then a 1-year extension from that date to February 28,
2011.
In their January 28 letter, the DNI and the Attorney General
expressed their concern about the devolution of FISA sunsets ``into a
series of short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne
by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying out their
missions.''
The letter states that ``S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of
2011, would avoid these difficulties by reauthorizing the three
expiring provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions
of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset next year.
We look forward to working with you to ensure the prompt enactment of
this or similar legislation.''
Yesterday, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees also received
a classified report from the Attorney General and the DNI on the
important intelligence collection made possible by authority that is
subject to the approaching sunset. The Department of Justice and the
Office of the DNI have asked for our assistance in making this
classified report available, in a secure setting, directly and
personally to any Member of the Senate. We did so for a similar report
a year ago when Congress considered the last sunset extension.
Each Senator is invited to read this classified report in the
Intelligence Committee's offices in 211 Hart Senate Office Building.
The Attorney General and DNI have offered to make Justice Department
and intelligence community personnel available to meet with any Member
who has questions. Our Intelligence Committee staff is also prepared to
meet with Members. Vice Chairman Chambliss and I are sending a Dear
Colleague letter to each Senator conveying this invitation.
In concluding, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate and House to
heed the Attorney General's and DNI's concern about the uncertainty
created by short-term extensions. The 3-year extension that my
legislation proposes will give our law enforcement and intelligence
officials the tools and certainty they need in protecting the Nation.
It will align the several sunsets so that Congress can review FISA more
comprehensively in 2013. In setting that date Congress will wisely be
separating that review of FISA from the debates of a presidential
election.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Leaders Reid, Pelosi, and
McConnell:
In the current threat environment, it is imperative that
our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools
they need to protect our national security. The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') is a critical tool
that has been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence
collection operations. Three vital provisions of FISA are
scheduled to expire on February 28, 2011: section 206 of the
USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority for roving
surveillance of targets who take steps that may thwart FISA
surveillance; section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which
provides expanded authority to compel production of business
records and other tangible things with the approval of the
FISA court; and section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act, which provides the authority under
FISA to target non-United States persons who engage in
international terrorism or activities in preparation
therefor, but are not necessarily associated with an
identified terrorist group (the so-called ``lone wolf''
amendment).
It is essential that these intelligence tools be
reauthorized before they expire, and we are committed to
working with Congress to ensure the speedy enactment of
legislation to achieve this result.
We also urge Congress to grant a reauthorization of
sufficient duration to provide those charged with protecting
our nation with reasonable certainty and predictability. When
Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, it included a three-year
sunset on these authorities. While we welcome Congressional
oversight into the use of these tools, Congress did not
contemplate that this sunset would devolve into a series of
short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne
by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying
out their missions.
S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, would avoid
these difficulties by reauthorizing the three expiring
provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions
of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset
next year. We look forward to working with you to ensure the
prompt enactment of this or similar legislation.
The Administration also remains open to proposals that
enhance protections for civil liberties and privacy while
maintaining the effectiveness of these and other intelligence
collection tools.
Finally, we are prepared to provide additional information
to Members concerning these critical authorities in a
classified setting, as we did in connection with the previous
reauthorization of the expiring provisions.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that
there is no objection to this letter from the perspective of
the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
James R. Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 291. A bill to repeal the sunset provisions in the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and other related
provisions and permanently reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act; read the
first time.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 291
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 ``USA PATRIOT Reauthorization
Act of 2011.''.
SEC. 2. USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISIONS.
Section 102(b) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C.
1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is
repealed.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS
AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.
Section 6001(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 1801
note) is repealed.
______
By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Burr, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Paul, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Thune,
Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Crapo, and Ms. Ayotte):
S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be
balanced; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 5
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds
of each House concurring therein), That the following article
is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States:
``Article--
``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.
[[Page S551]]
``Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of
the gross domestic product of the United States for the
calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal
year.
``Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the
limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any
fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each
House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific
excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the
gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar
year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
``Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the
rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-
thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a
roll call vote.
``Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States
held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds
of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide
for such an increase by a roll call vote.
``Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and
a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this
article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by
one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No
court of the United States or of any State shall order any
increase in revenue to enforce this article.
``Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation.
``Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total
outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except
those for repayment of debt principal.
``Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning
with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States.''.
____________________