[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1503-S1511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 517. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants for 
States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Katie 
Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2011. I am pleased that Senators 
Kyl, Udall of New Mexico, Schumer, and Bennet of Colorado are joining 
me today in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. Congressman 
Schiff and Reichert are also introducing this bipartisan bill in the 
House.
  Similar legislation, which was championed in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman Teague, overwhelmingly passed that body 
last year with a bipartisan vote of 357 to 32. Unfortunately, efforts 
to move the legislation last year were unsuccessful in the Senate. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill 
in the Senate this Congress.
  The bill is named after Katie Sepich, a promising graduate student 
attending New Mexico State University who was tragically murdered in 
2003. The man who killed Katie was arrested for aggravated assault 
about 3 months after the murder. Although police had collected the 
killer's DNA from the crime scene, because there was no requirement 
that DNA be taken from individuals arrested for serious felonies, 
police weren't able to get a match until about 3 years after the murder 
when the man was sent to prison after being convicted of unrelated 
crimes.
  If New Mexico had the arrestee law then that it has today it would 
have taken 3 months, not 3 years, to solve the crime. Katie's mother, 
Jayann, has worked tirelessly at the state and Federal level to give 
law enforcement the tools they need to promptly solve crimes and ensure 
that other mothers don't have to suffer the same horrible ordeal that 
her family has.
  We can't get Katie back, or the other lives that have been lost to 
these senseless crimes, but we can do something to help solve cases and 
prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. One such step is 
to enhance the capacity of States to collect the DNA of individuals 
arrested for certain felony crimes, which would substantially increase 
the ability of law enforcement to match DNA found at crimes scenes with 
that of suspects and individuals who have been previously arrested, 
charged, or convicted of crimes.
  The Federal Government and about half the states, including New 
Mexico, currently collect arrestee DNA for serious offenses. This has 
proven to be a very effective tool in solving cases, and it makes sense 
to incentivize States to continue and to expand this effort. Since New 
Mexico implemented ``Katie's Law'' in 7007, there have been about 100 
matches of arrestees. It is also important to note that DNA collection 
has not only demonstrated its effectiveness in terms of saving lives 
and preventing crimes, but it has also proved to be an important means 
of ensuring that innocent individuals are not mistakenly jailed for 
crimes they did not commit.
  Let me take a moment to specifically describe what this legislation 
would, and would not, do. First, this legislation is aimed at creating 
an incentive for states to enact arrestee DNA collection program's. It 
is not a mandate. States that meet minimum collection guidelines could 
apply for DOJ grant assistance in covering the first-year costs that 
they have incurred or will incur in implementing the standards. If they 
enact laws in accordance with the enhanced guidelines, States would be 
eligible for an additional bonus payment.
  Second, the bill encourages DNA testing for serious felonies, such as 
murder, sex crimes, aggravated assault, and burglary. It is narrowly 
tailored to apply to the most serious crimes. Third, the legislation 
provides that all of the expungement provisions under Federal law are 
applicable. Arrestees who have their DNA included in the Federal 
database may have their records expunged if their conviction is 
overturned, they are acquitted, or charges are dismissed or not filed 
within the applicable time period. Furthermore, the bill provides that 
as a condition of receiving a grant States must notify individuals who 
submit samples of the relevant expungement procedures and post the 
information on a public Web site.
  Lastly, I would like to address the concerns some have raised about 
the constitutionality of collecting arrestee DNA. Although courts have 
upheld the collection of arrestee DNA, I recognize that the question of 
whether the collection of a DNA sample from an arrestee is consistent 
with the Fourth Amendment isn't a completely settled question of law. 
Some courts have viewed the collection as something akin to 
fingerprinting and other courts have viewed it as a more intrusive 
search, such as the taking of a blood sample. However, the Department 
of Justice has stated that it believes that this legislation is 
constitutional and is supportive of encouraging states to pass DNA 
arrestee laws. I believe that such programs, with appropriate 
safeguards in place, have demonstrated that they can be a very 
effective mechanism to save lives, solve crimes, and prevent wrongful 
convictions.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.

[[Page S1504]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Moran, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Risch, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Isakson):
  S. 518. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants in certain 
veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to 
reintroduce legislation with my friend, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, 
that will exempt Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, VMLRP, 
awards from federal income taxation. I drafted this bipartisan bill 
with the intention of increasing veterinary services in underserved 
shortage areas that lack adequate veterinary expertise.
  The United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Veterinary 
Medicine Loan Repayment Program was authorized in 2003 by the National 
Veterinary Medical Services Act, NVMSA, to help qualified veterinarians 
offset a significant amount of the debt they accrue while pursuing 
their degrees if they in turn serve in high-priority veterinary 
shortage areas for a certain length of time. However, the awards are 
currently taxed at a rate of 39 percent. This taxation is 
counterproductive and only delays delivery of veterinary services to 
areas that are in desperate need.
  In determining whether an area is eligible for assistance under the 
VMLRP, USDA has the ability to declare ``shortage situations,'' in 
which the Department makes declarations of veterinary shortage areas. 
Currently, there are two circumstances that lead to such designations. 
The first is by geography, when a given geographic area suffers a 
shortage of veterinarians overall. The second occurs when areas suffer 
a shortage of veterinarians who practice in a particular field of 
veterinary specialty. My home State of South Dakota currently has four 
designated shortage situations. Two of these designations are statewide 
designations noting a shortage of practitioners in veterinary 
specialties. On a national scale, there are 1,300 counties in the 
United States that have less than one food animal veterinarian per 
25,000 farm animals. Additionally, there are 500 counties that have at 
least 5,000 farm animals and not a single veterinarian. Bear in mind, 
the demand for veterinarians across our country could increase 14 
percent by 2016.
  South Dakota is truly a wonderful place to call home, but it is not 
always an easy place to earn a living. This is especially true for 
young people who are just starting out and are saddled with crushing 
levels of school debt. I have long fought for legislation that makes it 
easier for students to pay off their loans and to encourage others who 
may be reluctant to pursue higher education degrees, due to a lack of 
financial resources, especially when it comes to costly professional 
degrees including veterinary medicine. My legislation will help 
students pursue their educational goals, while also providing important 
services to underserved rural areas by enhancing the assistance 
veterinary graduates receive in exchange for meaningful public service.
  Agriculture is the top contributor to our South Dakota economy. For 
those farmers and ranchers who make their living in agriculture, this 
is more than a job; it is a way of life. Our ranchers, many of whom 
operate in very rural areas, rely on the access they have to qualified 
veterinarians to care for their livestock. Adequate access to 
veterinary care in rural areas is critical for both human and animal 
health, as well as animal welfare, disease surveillance, public safety 
and economic development across America. Everyone in America benefits 
from the veterinary services provided in even the most remote areas of 
our nation. As such, I am committed to doing all I can to help bring 
veterinarians to underserved parts of our state.
  I am proud to have fought for the establishment of the VMLRP program, 
and through my seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have 
worked year after year to secure its proper funding. Unfortunately, 
however, the taxes assessed on these benefits prevent us from using 
congressionally appropriated funding to the fullest extent. For every 
three veterinarians selected for the loan repayment awards, an 
additional veterinarian could also be selected to serve in an 
underserved shortage area if the program was made exempt from taxes. 
Such a tax exemption is not without precedent; Congress exempted from 
taxation the assistance received by participants in the National Health 
Services Corps, NHSC, in 2004, and I hope that my colleagues will join 
me in extending this same type of assistance to veterinarians 
participating in the VMLRP program.
  It should be noted that nearly 140 organizations from across the 
nation have announced their support for a tax exemption for VMLRP, 
including the American Veterinary Medical Association, American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the American Sheep Industry Association, the National 
Farmers Union, and the South Dakota Veterinary Medical Association, 
South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Farmers Union, South Dakota 
Cattlemen's Association, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association and 
many, many others.
  Agriculture is the economic engine that drives our rural communities, 
and without viable family farms and ranchers, our small towns and Main 
Street businesses throughout South Dakota and our nation would face 
significant hardships. It is absolutely essential that our agricultural 
producers have access to the services they need to be successful and 
responsible, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program 
Enhancement Act will help make that possible.
  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:

         American Veterinary Medical Association Governmental 
           Relations Division,
                                                   Washington, DC.

Statement of Support for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program 
                            Enhancement Act

       The undersigned organizations urge Congress to pass the 
     Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act, 
     which will provide a federal income tax exemption for 
     payments received under the Veterinary Medicine Loan 
     Repayment Program (VMLRP) and similar state programs.
       Since Congress passed the ``National Veterinary Medical 
     Services Act'' (PL 108-161) on Dec. 6, 2003, it has 
     appropriated $9.6 million for awards. About $3.75 million of 
     this amount will be used by the Agriculture Secretary to pay 
     taxes on the awards. Every dollar spent on taxes is one less 
     available for loan repayment awards. If awards are made tax 
     exempt, one additional veterinarian can be selected for every 
     three awarded under current law.
       The first 62 veterinarians were selected for VMLRP awards 
     in September 2010. These veterinarians will practice food 
     supply medicine and veterinary public health in federally 
     designated shortage situations across the country. The 
     selected group of veterinarians will receive up to $25,000 
     annually for three years to repay student loans. Each VMLRP 
     award including taxes for three years costs approximately 
     $104,250 per veterinarian ($75,000 for loan repayment and 
     $29,250 for taxes).
       Congress set a precedent for tax exemption. The National 
     Health Service Corps (NHSC) loan repayment program 
     (counterpart program for human medicine) was exempted by 
     ``The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004'' (H.R. 4520, P.L. 
     108-357), enacted on Oct. 22, 2004. Prior to this legislative 
     change, NHSC loan repayment awards were treated as taxable 
     income.
       Veterinarians selected for VMLRP provide a wide array of 
     necessary veterinary services for farmers' and ranchers' 
     livestock including beef and dairy cows, poultry, swine, 
     goats, sheep, and farm horses. VMLRP veterinarians ensure 
     animal health and welfare while protecting the nation's food 
     supply. They provide veterinarian-accredited medical 
     procedures including routine services (vaccination, 
     castration and dehorning) and emergency services (for acute 
     illness, trauma, dystocia or obstetrical difficulties). Other 
     services performed include those required for interstate 
     movement of livestock, including commuter agreements and 
     animal health testing requirements needed to ship livestock. 
     VMLRP veterinarians perform tuberculosis checks and 
     accredited blood sample services for Brucellosis, Bluetongue, 
     and Bovine Viral Diarrhea. Additionally, they may provide 
     reproduction management consultation services and 
     consultation in health care programs and nutrition, disease 
     surveillance and diagnostics for state and federal disease 
     programs and foreign animal diseases. They may also play a 
     role in a state's

[[Page S1505]]

     veterinary emergency response team and take part in disease 
     control and eradication programs.
       Exempting veterinary medicine loan repayment and 
     forgiveness program awards from federal income taxation will 
     lead to more communities having needed veterinary services 
     sooner than they may otherwise. We strongly support Congress' 
     efforts to ensure that our nation's livestock are healthy, 
     that our food supply is safe and secure, and our public 
     health is protected.
           Sincerely,
       American Veterinary Medical Association, Academy of Rural 
     Veterinarians, Alabama Veterinary Medical Association, Alaska 
     Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal Hospital 
     Association, American Academy of Veterinary Nutrition, 
     American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, American 
     Association of Avian Pathologists, American Association of 
     Bovine Practitioners, American Association of Corporate and 
     Public Practice Veterinarians, American Association of Equine 
     Practitioners, American Association of Feline Practitioners, 
     American Association of Food Hygiene Veterinarians, American 
     Association of Public Health Veterinarians, American 
     Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners.
       American Association of Swine Veterinarians, American 
     Association of Veterinary Clinicians, American Association of 
     Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, American Association of 
     Zoo Veterinarians, American Board of Veterinary 
     Practitioners, American Board of Veterinary Toxicology, 
     American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, American 
     College of Poultry Veterinarians, American College of 
     Theriogenologists, American College of Veterinary 
     Dermatology, American College of Veterinary Pathologists, 
     American College of Veterinary Radiology, American Dairy 
     Science Association, American Farm Bureau 
     Federation,' American Feed Industry Association.
       American Horse Council, American Meat Institute, American 
     Rabbit Breeders Association, Inc., American Sheep Industry 
     Association, American Society of Animal Science, American 
     Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners, American Veal 
     Association, American Veterinary Medical Foundation, Animal 
     Agriculture Alliance's, Animal Health Institute, Animal 
     Welfare Institute, Arizona Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association, Association for 
     Women Veterinarians Foundation, Association of American 
     Veterinary Medical Colleges.
       Association of Avian Veterinarians, Association of 
     Veterinary Biologics Companies, Association of Zoos & 
     Aquariums, Bayer Animal Health, Boehringer Ingelheim 
     Vetmedica, Inc., California Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Center for Rural Affairs, Colorado Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Delaware Veterinary Medical Association, District of Columbia 
     Veterinary Medical Association, Elanco Animal Health (A 
     Division of Eli Lilly & Company), Federation for Animal 
     Science Societies, Florida Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Georgia Veterinary Medical Association.
       Hawaii Veterinary Medical Association, Idaho Veterinary 
     Medical Association, Illinois State Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Indiana Veterinary Medical Association, 
     International Lama Registry, Iowa Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Kansas Bioscience Authority, Kansas City Animal 
     Health Corridor, Kansas Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, Livestock 
     Marketing Association, Louisiana Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Maine Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Maryland Veterinary Medical Association, Inc., 
     Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association.
       Michigan Veterinary Medical Association, Minnesota 
     Veterinary Medical Association, Mississippi Veterinary 
     Medical Association, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Montana Veterinary Medical Association, National Aquaculture 
     Association, National Association of Federal Veterinarians, 
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 
     National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, 
     National Chicken Council, National Council of Farmer 
     Cooperatives, National Dairy Herd Information Association, 
     National Farmers Union, National Institute for Animal 
     Agriculture, National Livestock Producers Association.
       National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers 
     Council, National Renderers Association, National Turkey 
     Federation, Nebraska Veterinary Medical Association, Nevada 
     Veterinary Medical Association, New Hampshire Veterinary 
     Medical Association, New Jersey Veterinary Medical 
     Association, New York State Veterinary Medical Society, North 
     American Deer Farmers Association, North Carolina Veterinary 
     Medical Association, North Dakota Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Northeast States Association for Agriculture 
     Stewardship, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, Oklahoma 
     Veterinary Medical Association.
       Oregon Veterinary Medical Association, Pet Food Institute, 
     Pfizer Animal Health, Puerto Rico Veterinary Medical 
     Association (Colegio de Medicos Veterinarios de Puerto Rico), 
     Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association, Poultry Science 
     Association, Rhode Island Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Silliker, Inc., Society for 
     Theriogenology, South Carolina Association of Veterinarians, 
     South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, South Dakota Farmers 
     Union, South Dakota Pork Producers Council, South Dakota 
     Stockgrowers Association.
       South Dakota Veterinary Medical Association, South Dakota 
     Farm Bureau, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders, Student 
     American Veterinary Medical Association, Synbiotics 
     Corporation, Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association, Texas 
     Veterinary Medical Association, United Egg Producers, United 
     States Animal Health Association, U.S. Cattlemen's 
     Association, Utah Veterinary Medical Association, Vermont 
     Veterinary Medical Association, Virginia Veterinary Medical 
     Association, Washington State Veterinary Medical Association, 
     Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association, Wyoming Veterinary 
     Medical Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 519. A bill to further allocate and expand the availability of 
hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 519

       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 ``Hoover Power Allocation Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. ALLOCATION OF CONTRACTS FOR POWER.

       (a) Schedule A Power.--Section 105(a)(1)(A) of the Hoover 
     Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``renewal'';
       (2) by striking ``June 1, 1987'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2017''; and
       (3) by striking Schedule A and inserting the following:

                                                  ``Schedule A
  Long-term Schedule A contingent capacity and associated firm energy for offers of contracts to Boulder Canyon
                                               project contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Contingent      Firm energy (thousands of kWh)
                         Contractor                            capacity  ---------------------------------------
                                                                 (kW)       Summer      Winter         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California..........     249,948     859,163     368,212       1,227,375
City of Los Angeles.........................................     495,732     464,108     199,175         663,283
Southern California Edison Company..........................     280,245     166,712      71,448         238,160
City of Glendale............................................      18,178      45,028      19,297          64,325
City of Pasadena............................................      11,108      38,622      16,553          55,175
City of Burbank.............................................       5,176      14,070       6,030          20,100
Arizona Power Authority.....................................     190,869     429,582     184,107         613,689
Colorado River Commission of Nevada.........................     190,869     429,582     184,107         613,689
United States, for Boulder City.............................      20,198      53,200      22,800          76,000
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
Totals......................................................   1,462,323   2,500,067   1,071,729    3,571,796''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Schedule B Power.--Section 105(a)(1)(B) of the Hoover 
     Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)(1)(B)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) To each existing contractor for power generated at 
     Hoover Dam, a contract, for delivery commencing October 1, 
     2017, of the amount of contingent capacity and firm energy 
     specified for that contractor in the following table:

[[Page S1506]]



                                                  ``Schedule B
  Long-term Schedule B contingent capacity and associated firm energy for offers of contracts to Boulder Canyon
                                               project contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Contingent    Firm energy (thousands of kWh)
                           Contractor                              capacity  -----------------------------------
                                                                     (kW)       Summer      Winter       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 City of Glendale...............................................       2,020       2,749       1,194       3,943
City of Pasadena................................................       9,089       2,399       1,041       3,440
City of Burbank.................................................      15,149       3,604       1,566       5,170
City of Anaheim.................................................      40,396      34,442      14,958      49,400
City of Azusa...................................................       4,039       3,312       1,438       4,750
City of Banning.................................................       2,020       1,324         576       1,900
City of Colton..................................................       3,030       2,650       1,150       3,800
City of Riverside...............................................      30,296      25,831      11,219      37,050
City of Vernon..................................................      22,218      18,546       8,054      26,600
Arizona.........................................................     189,860     140,600      60,800     201,400
Nevada..........................................................     189,860     273,600     117,800     391,400
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Totals..........................................................     507,977     509,057     219,796  728,853''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (c) Schedule C Power.--Section 105(a)(1)(C) of the Hoover 
     Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)(1)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 1, 1987'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2017''; and
       (2) by striking Schedule C and inserting the following:

                                                  ``Schedule C
                                                  Excess Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Priority of entitlement to excess energy                                  State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First: Meeting Arizona's first priority right to delivery    Arizona
 of excess energy which is equal in each year of operation
 to 200 million kilowatthours: Provided, That in the event
 excess energy in the amount of 200 million kilowatthours
 is not generated during any year of operation, Arizona
 shall accumulate a first right to delivery of excess
 energy subsequently generated in an amount not to exceed
 600 million kilowatthours, inclusive of the current year's
 200 million kilowatthours. Said first right of delivery
 shall accrue at a rate of 200 million kilowatthours per
 year for each year excess energy in an amount of 200
 million kilowatthours is not generated, less amounts of
 excess energy delivered...................................
Second: Meeting Hoover Dam contractual obligations under     Arizona, Nevada, and California
 Schedule A of subsection (a)(1)(A), under Schedule B of
 subsection (a)(1)(B), and under Schedule D of subsection
 (a)(2), not exceeding 26 million kilowatthours in each
 year of operation.........................................
Third: Meeting the energy requirements of the three States,  Arizona, Nevada, and California''.
 such available excess energy to be divided equally among
 the States................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (d) Schedule D Power.--Section 105(a) of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of Energy is authorized to and shall 
     create from the apportioned allocation of contingent capacity 
     and firm energy adjusted from the amounts authorized in this 
     Act in 1984 to the amounts shown in Schedule A and Schedule 
     B, as modified by the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011, a 
     resource pool equal to 5 percent of the full rated capacity 
     of 2,074,000 kilowatts, and associated firm energy, as shown 
     in Schedule D (referred to in this section as `Schedule D 
     contingent capacity and firm energy'):

                                                  ``Schedule D
     Long-term Schedule D resource pool of contingent capacity and associated firm energy for new allottees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Contingent    Firm energy (thousands of kWh)
                              State                                capacity  -----------------------------------
                                                                     (kW)       Summer      Winter       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Entities Allocated by the Secretary of Energy...............      69,170     105,637      45,376     151,013
New Entities Allocated by State
Arizona.........................................................      11,510      17,580       7,533      25,113
 California.....................................................      11,510      17,580       7,533      25,113
Nevada..........................................................      11,510      17,580       7,533      25,113
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Totals..........................................................     103,700     158,377      67,975     226,352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(B) The Secretary of Energy shall offer Schedule D 
     contingency capacity and firm energy to entities not 
     receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) (referred to in 
     this section as `new allottees') for delivery commencing 
     October 1, 2017 pursuant to this subsection. In this 
     subsection, the term `the marketing area for the Boulder City 
     Area Projects' shall have the same meaning as in appendix A 
     of the General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or 
     Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects published in the 
     Federal Register on December 28, 1984 (49 Federal Register 
     50582 et seq.) (referred to in this section as the 
     `Criteria').
       ``(C)(i) Within 36 months of the date of enactment of the 
     Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall allocate through the Western Area Power Administration 
     (referred to in this section as `Western'), for delivery 
     commencing October 1, 2017, for use in the marketing area for 
     the Boulder City Area Projects 66.7 percent of the Schedule D 
     contingent capacity and firm energy to new allottees that are 
     located within the marketing area for the Boulder City Area 
     Projects and that are--
       ``(I) eligible to enter into contracts under section 5 of 
     the Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617d); or
       ``(II) federally recognized Indian tribes.
       ``(ii) In the case of Arizona and Nevada, Schedule D 
     contingent capacity and firm energy for new allottees other 
     than federally recognized Indian tribes shall be offered 
     through the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River 
     Commission of Nevada, respectively. Schedule D contingent 
     capacity and firm energy allocated to federally recognized 
     Indian tribes shall be contracted for directly with Western.

[[Page S1507]]

       ``(D) Within 1 year of the date of enactment of the Hoover 
     Power Allocation Act of 2011, the Secretary of Energy also 
     shall allocate, for delivery commencing October 1, 2017, for 
     use in the marketing area for the Boulder City Area Projects 
     11.1 percent of the Schedule D contingent capacity and firm 
     energy to each of--
       ``(i) the Arizona Power Authority for allocation to new 
     allottees in the State of Arizona;
       ``(ii) the Colorado River Commission of Nevada for 
     allocation to new allottees in the State of Nevada; and
       ``(iii) Western for allocation to new allottees within the 
     State of California, provided that Western shall have 36 
     months to complete such allocation.
       ``(E) Each contract offered pursuant to this subsection 
     shall include a provision requiring the new allottee to pay a 
     proportionate share of its State's respective contribution 
     (determined in accordance with each State's applicable 
     funding agreement) to the cost of the Lower Colorado River 
     Multi-Species Conservation Program (as defined in section 
     9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1327)), and to execute the 
     Boulder Canyon Project Implementation Agreement Contract No. 
     95-PAO-10616 (referred to in this section as the 
     `Implementation Agreement').
       ``(F) Any of the 66.7 percent of Schedule D contingent 
     capacity and firm energy that is to be allocated by Western 
     that is not allocated and placed under contract by October 1, 
     2017, shall be returned to those contractors shown in 
     Schedule A and Schedule B in the same proportion as those 
     contractors' allocations of Schedule A and Schedule B 
     contingent capacity and firm energy. Any of the 33.3 percent 
     of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is to 
     be distributed within the States of Arizona, Nevada, and 
     California that is not allocated and placed under contract by 
     October 1, 2017, shall be returned to the Schedule A and 
     Schedule B contractors within the State in which the Schedule 
     D contingent capacity and firm energy were to be distributed, 
     in the same proportion as those contractors' allocations of 
     Schedule A and Schedule B contingent capacity and firm 
     energy.''.
       (e) Total Obligations.--Paragraph (3) of section 105(a) of 
     the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)) (as 
     redesignated as subsection (d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``schedule A of 
     section 105(a)(1)(A) and schedule B of section 105(a)(1)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), and (2)''; and
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``any'' and inserting ``each'';
       (B) by striking ``schedule C'' and inserting ``Schedule 
     C''; and
       (C) by striking ``schedules A and B'' and inserting 
     ``Schedules A, B, and D''.
       (f) Power Marketing Criteria.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     105(a) of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 
     619a(a)) (as redesignated as subsection (d)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Subdivision E of the Criteria shall be deemed to have 
     been modified to conform to this section, as modified by the 
     Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011. The Secretary of Energy 
     shall cause to be included in the Federal Register a notice 
     conforming the text of the regulations to such 
     modifications.''.
       (g) Contract Terms.--Paragraph (5) of section 105(a) of the 
     Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(a)) (as 
     redesignated as subsection (d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) in accordance with section 5(a) of the Boulder Canyon 
     Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617d(a)), expire September 30, 
     2067;'';
       (2) in the proviso of subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``shall use'' and inserting ``shall 
     allocate''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
       (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) authorize and require Western to collect from new 
     allottees a pro rata share of Hoover Dam repayable advances 
     paid for by contractors prior to October 1, 2017, and remit 
     such amounts to the contractors that paid such advances in 
     proportion to the amounts paid by such contractors as 
     specified in section 6.4 of the Implementation Agreement;
       ``(E) permit transactions with an independent system 
     operator; and
       ``(F) contain the same material terms included in section 
     5.6 of those long-term contracts for purchases from the 
     Hoover Power Plant that were made in accordance with this Act 
     and are in existence on the date of enactment of the Hoover 
     Power Allocation Act of 2011.''.
       (h) Existing Rights.--Section 105(b) of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``2017'' and inserting ``2067''.
       (i) Offers.--Section 105(c) of the Hoover Power Plant Act 
     of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Offer of Contract to Other Entities.--If any existing 
     contractor fails to accept an offered contract, the Secretary 
     of Energy shall offer the contingent capacity and firm energy 
     thus available first to other entities in the same State 
     listed in Schedule A and Schedule B, second to other entities 
     listed in Schedule A and Schedule B, third to other entities 
     in the same State which receive contingent capacity and firm 
     energy under subsection (a)(2) of this section, and last to 
     other entities which receive contingent capacity and firm 
     energy under subsection (a)(2) of this section.''.
       (j) Availability of Water.--Section 105(d) of the Hoover 
     Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a(d)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d) Water Availability.--Except with respect to energy 
     purchased at the request of an allottee pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(3), the obligation of the Secretary of Energy 
     to deliver contingent capacity and firm energy pursuant to 
     contracts entered into pursuant to this section shall be 
     subject to availability of the water needed to produce such 
     contingent capacity and firm energy. In the event that water 
     is not available to produce the contingent capacity and firm 
     energy set forth in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall adjust the contingent capacity 
     and firm energy offered under those Schedules in the same 
     proportion as those contractors' allocations of Schedule A, 
     Schedule B, and Schedule D contingent capacity and firm 
     energy bears to the full rated contingent capacity and firm 
     energy obligations.''.
       (k) Conforming Amendments.--Section 105 of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (e) and (f); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
       (l) Continued Congressional Oversight.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 105 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 
     619a)) (as redesignated by subsection (k)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``the renewal of''; 
     and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``June 1, 1987, and 
     ending September 30, 2017'' and inserting ``October 1, 2017, 
     and ending September 30, 2067''.
       (m) Court Challenges.--Subsection (f)(1) of section 105 of 
     the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (k)(2)) is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the Hoover 
     Power Allocation Act of 2011''.
       (n) Reaffirmation of Congressional Declaration of 
     Purpose.--Subsection (g) of section 105 of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619a) (as redesignated by 
     subsection (k)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subsections (c), (g), and (h) of this 
     section'' and inserting ``this Act''; and
       (2) by striking ``June 1, 1987, and ending September 30, 
     2017'' and inserting ``October 1, 2017, and ending September 
     30, 2067''.

     SEC. 3. PAYGO.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 524. A bill to terminate certain hydropower reservations, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to remove the encumbrances from land patents for a dam project that 
will never be built. This will enable the current owner of the land to 
sell or bequeath his land more easily.
  Donald Smith and his family acquired two parcels of undeveloped 
public land in Madera County, California by patent of the United States 
in 1983 and 1987. These parcels, comprising 103.26 acres and 41.323 
acres, respectively, are adjacent to U.S. Forest Service land.
  In the early 1980s, the U.S. Government anticipated that a 
hydroelectric power project might someday be built in the vicinity, 
causing all or a portion of these lands to be inundated with water. 
Accordingly, when it issued the 1983 patent to Mr. Smith, the Bureau of 
Land Management included a ``flowage easement'', reserving the right of 
the government to flood the lands for a power dam. In the mid-1980s, 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that this 
reservation and others like it were ``non-essential'', and that no dam 
would be built. Accordingly, no easement was included in the 1987 
patent, although some believe it was erroneously omitted.
  Flowage easements constitute a cloud on the title to land, 
restricting its market value and the orderly disposition of his estate. 
Since FERC, and all potentially interested parties, including BLM, 
Southern California Edison and the U.S. Forest Service, have agreed 
that the easement in this instance serves no purpose, and no dam

[[Page S1508]]

will be built, clear title should be restored. The Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior has decided this requires an Act of 
Congress.
  Mr. Smith is now a senior citizen, and seeks to assure that his heirs 
will not be burdened by this matter and will benefit from the full fair 
market value of these now-verdant and recreational lands. Through 
enactment of this simple bill, the Congress will finally affirm a 
decision made by FERC in 1986, and restore ``clean'' title for benefit 
of Mr. Smith, his heirs and assigns.
  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. 524

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF HYDROPOWER RESERVATIONS.

       (a) Termination of Reservation Relating to Bureau of Land 
     Management Patent Numbered CA 6313.--The reservation under 
     section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 818) of the 
     Bureau of Land Management patent numbered CA 6313 and dated 
     May 13, 1983, to the approximately 103.26 acres of land now 
     owned by Donald L. Smith in Madera County, California, and 
     more particularly described as a portion of secs. 25, 26, 35, 
     and 36, T. 4 S., R. 24 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, is 
     terminated.
       (b) Termination of Reservation Relating to Bureau of Land 
     Management Patent Numbered CA 19394.--To the extent that any 
     reservation of use for hydropower could be determined to have 
     been omitted under section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 818) from the Bureau of Land Management patent 
     numbered CA 19394 and dated September 25, 1987, to the 
     approximately 41.323 acres of land conveyed to Lindsay Smith, 
     Peggy L. Birchim, Donald L. Smith, and Keith Smith, and more 
     particularly described as comprising a portion of secs. 25 
     and 36, unsurveyed T. 4 S., R. 24 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, 
     Jackass Mining District, Madera County, California, the 
     reservation is terminated.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 525. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
integration of mental health services and mental health treatment 
outreach teams, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act, 
which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental 
health screening and treatment services in community-based care 
settings.
  The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important 
for States like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older 
persons. Fifteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, 
with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the 
nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing, and, by 
2030, more than one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.
  One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation 
today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for 
the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental 
disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people 
around them.
  What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental 
illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than 
one in five Americans aged 65 and older experience mental illness, and 
that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer 
from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is the 
fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often 
overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they 
are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.
  While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, 
the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is 
depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an 
eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed 
persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast 
majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their 
feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are 
clinically depressed.
  Moreover, those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or 
misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to 
estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not 
receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this 
kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical 
conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health 
care costs.
  Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing 
innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for 
older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This 
research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive 
appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional 
on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental 
health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple 
appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't 
work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic 
illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The 
research also shows that there is less stigma associated with 
psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical 
care.
  The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes 
funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and 
treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. 
Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2011 would authorize the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund 
demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services 
in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community-
based mental health treatment outreach teams to improve older 
Americans' access to mental health services. To ensure that these 
geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, 
it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult 
Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it 
would also include representatives of older Americans or their families 
and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for 
the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require state 
plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include 
descriptions of the states' outreach to and services for older 
individuals.
  We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to 
address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging 
Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these 
important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as 
cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by a broad 
coalition of mental health and senior organizations, including the 
Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the American 
Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the 
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, and the National Council 
on Aging.
  Mr. President, I ask uanimous 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:

                                                    March 7, 2011.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Mikulski: On behalf of the 
     undersigned organizations, we are writing to applaud your 
     ongoing commitment to the mental and behavioral health needs 
     of older Americans and express our strong support for the 
     Positive Aging Act, which you are planning to introduce in 
     the near future. This important legislation will improve 
     access to vital mental and behavioral health care for older 
     adults by supporting the integration of mental health 
     services in primary care and community settings.
       An estimated 20 percent of community-based older adults in 
     the U.S. have a mental health problem. These disorders can 
     have a significant impact on both physical and mental health, 
     often leading to increases in disease, disability, and 
     mortality. In fact, men age 85 and older currently have the 
     highest rates of suicide in our country and depression is the 
     foremost risk factor. Evidence suggests that up to 75 percent 
     of older adults who die by suicide have visited a primary

[[Page S1509]]

     care professional within 30 days of their death. Although 
     effective treatments exist, the mental health needs of many 
     older Americans go unrecognized and untreated because of 
     poorly integrated systems of care to address the physical and 
     mental health needs of seniors.
       The Positive Aging Act takes an important step toward 
     improving access to quality mental and behavioral health care 
     for older adults by integrating mental health services in 
     primary care and community settings where older adults reside 
     and receive services. By supporting collaboration between 
     interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals and 
     other providers of health and social services, this 
     legislation promotes an integrated approach to addressing the 
     health and well being of our nation's growing older adult 
     population.
       We commend you for your leadership and commitment to the 
     mental and behavioral health needs of older adults and look 
     forward to working with you to ensure passage of the Positive 
     Aging Act.
           Sincerely,
       Alzheimer's Association; Alzheimer's Foundation of America; 
     American Assisted Living Nurses Association; American 
     Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; American Association 
     for Long Term Care Nursing; American Association for 
     Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work; American Association 
     for Psychosocial Rehabilitation; American Association on 
     Health and Disability; American Foundation for Suicide 
     Prevention/SPAN USA; American Geriatrics Society; American 
     Group Psychotherapy Association; American Mental Health 
     Counselors Association; American Nurses Association; American 
     Occupational Therapy Association; American Orthopsychiatric 
     Association; American Psychiatric Association; American 
     Psychological Association; American Psychotherapy 
     Association; American Society on Aging; Anxiety Disorders 
     Association of America.
       Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare; Bazelon 
     Center for Mental Health Law; Clinical Social Work 
     Association; Clinical Social Work Guild 49; Council of 
     Professional Geropsychology Training Programs; Depression and 
     Bipolar Support Alliance; Direct Care Alliance; Geriatric 
     Mental Health Alliance of New York; Gerontological Society of 
     America; Illinois Coalition on Mental Health and Aging; Iowa 
     Coalition on Mental Health and Aging; Jewish Federation of 
     Metropolitan Chicago; Jewish Federations of North America; 
     Kansas Advocates for Better Care; Kansas Suicide Prevention 
     Committee; Mental Health America; Midland Area Agency on 
     Aging; National Alliance for Caregiving; National Association 
     for Behavioral Health; National Association for Children's 
     Behavioral Health.
       National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; National 
     Association of Social Workers; National Association of State 
     Mental Health Program Directors; National Center for Assisted 
     Living; National Coalition on Care Coordination; National 
     Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Council 
     for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council on 
     Aging; National Council on Problem Gambling; National 
     Foundation for Mental Health; New Hampshire Coalition on 
     Substance Abuse, Mental Health & Aging; Oklahoma Mental 
     Health and Aging Coalition; PHI--Quality Care through Quality 
     Jobs; Psychologists in Long Term Care; US Psychiatric 
     Rehabilitation Association; Witness Justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 532. A bill to establish the Patriot Express Loan Program under 
which the Small Business Administration may make loans to members of 
the military community wanting to start or expand small business 
concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business 
and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, in introducing the Patriot Express 
Authorization Act of 2011. This legislation codifies a critical Small 
Business Administration, SBA, lending program for America's veterans 
and Reservists, as well as their spouses.
  It is critical that we support our nation's veterans and, in 
particular, our service-members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Regrettably, the unemployment rate for veterans of these two wars is 
12.5 percent--a full 3.6 percent higher than the national unemployment 
rate for the overall population. Many of these brave men and women have 
aspirations of owning their own business, and I was proud to work with 
Senator Kerry to pass the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business 
Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, which President George W. 
Bush signed into law three years ago. This legislation contains a 
number of provisions to help veterans and Reservists who own or are 
seeking to own a business, and created an Interagency Task Force on 
Veterans Small Business Development, which President Obama formed by 
Executive Order last spring, to assist veterans with government 
contracting and capital access opportunities in particular.
  One way the SBA has supported veteran entrepreneurs is through the 
Patriot Express Loan Initiative, which was established as a pilot 
program in 2007. According to the data from the SBA, Patriot Express 
supported nearly 7,000 loans totaling $560 million to small businesses 
owned and operated by eligible participants in just three and a half 
years. While the program was scheduled to expire in December, the SBA 
extended it for an additional three years, through 2013. That said, 
this legislation would provide certainty to the program by placing it 
in statute.
  Coupled with the counseling and training assistance provided by the 
SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, the Patriot Express loan 
program is a signal to our nation's veterans, Reservists, service-
members, and their families that the Federal government takes seriously 
its obligation to give back for all they have done to defend our 
nation. These loans will help participants start or expand their firms, 
purchase equipment or inventory, and ultimately, create jobs. I am 
proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Pryor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Lee):
  S. 533. A bill to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
civil justice legislation. This legislation is desperately needed for 
several reasons--the most important of which is to cut down on the 
costs and expenses that are preventing private businesses from creating 
jobs for our fellow citizens during these difficult times.
  The billions of dollars wasted on frivolous lawsuits cost Americans 
jobs and severely damage our economy. The precise cost of America's 
lawsuit culture is staggering. The tort system's direct costs in 2002 
were $233 billion, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Today 
that number is even higher; the annual direct cost of American tort 
litigation exceeds $250 billion.
  Indeed, frivolous lawsuits are helping to prevent the ``innovation'' 
that the Obama administration is touting as the key to ``job creation'' 
and economic recovery. For example, firms with recent initial public 
offerings are most at risk to be sued. In fact, companies are most 
likely to be sued in their second year of public trading. In other 
words, the very corporations most likely to be the source of 
significant new job creation are at the highest risk of being sued just 
when they are seeking expansion capital through public offerings.
  In particular, frivolous lawsuits hurt small businesses. Small 
businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as 
second only to the cost of health care as their top concerns, and both 
problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits.
  Our front-line defense against frivolous lawsuits and the misuse of 
our legal system is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
This rule is intended to deter frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning the 
offending party. The power of Rule 11 was diluted in 1993. This 
weakening is unacceptable to those of us who want to preserve courts as 
neutral forums for dispute resolution.
  That is why I am introducing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011, 
``LARA,'' which amends Rule 11 to restore its strength and ability to 
truly deter frivolous lawsuits. Senator Mike Lee of Utah is 
cosponsoring this bill.
  Representative Lamar Smith, the Chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, is introducing an identical bill today in the House of 
Representatives.
  Specifically, LARA takes three strong steps to help thwart frivolous 
lawsuits.
  First, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that made 
sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.
  One of the most harmful changes that took effect in 1993 was to make 
sanctions for proven violations of Rule 11 discretionary. This means 
that if a party files a lawsuit simply to harass another party, and the 
court decides that this is in fact the case, the offending party still 
might not be sanctioned. This is unacceptable. The offending

[[Page S1510]]

party might not be punished at all, which provides no deterrence for 
the offending party or anyone else who wants to misuse the courts. My 
bill reinstates the requirement that if there is a violation of Rule 
11, there are sanctions.
  Second, LARA requires that judges impose monetary sanctions against 
lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Those monetary sanctions will 
include the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the victim of the 
frivolous lawsuit.
  Finally, LARA reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that allow 
parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous 
claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions 
has been served.
  Because of Rule 11's ``safe harbor'' provision, many frivolous claims 
are never fully reviewed by federal judges. Under the ``safe harbor'' 
provision, a person who is victimized by a frivolous claim must hire an 
attorney to draft a motion for sanctions. That motion cannot, however, 
be filed immediately. Rather, under Rule 11(c)(2), the motion is served 
on the offending attorney 21-days before it is filed. During that 
period, the offending attorney can withdraw the frivolous claim and 
thereby avoid any sanction. LARA would prevent such injustices by 
eliminating the ``safe harbor'' provision.
  Although LARA would only amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, the procedural rules in State courts are often amended to 
track changes in the Federal rules. Consequently, it is our hope that 
many states would amend their rules governing frivolous lawsuits to 
reflect the changes implemented by LARA, just as they did when Rule 11 
was last changed in 1993.
  Without the serious threat of punishment for filing frivolous 
lawsuits, innocent individuals and companies will continue to face the 
harsh economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claimants 
through monetary settlements is often cheaper than litigating the case. 
This perverse dynamic not only results in legalized extortion, but it 
leads to increases in the insurance premiums all individuals and 
businesses must pay. That is money that could be going to create new 
jobs.
  I want to work with those who are willing to be reasonable. I know 
that some have expressed concerns with similar bills in the past. We 
have considered those concerns and have drafted a bill that takes them 
into account. For example, this bill expressly provides that nothing in 
it ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development 
of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local 
laws, including civil rights laws.''
  Requiring mandatory sanctions is not an extreme position. It is a 
reasonable and effective solution to the problem of runaway frivolous 
lawsuits.
  Indeed, a mandatory sanctions requirement is currently the law in the 
area of securities litigation. In 1995, we enacted the Private 
Securities Litigation Reform Act, PSLRA, over President Clinton's veto. 
It essentially reinstates the 1983 version of Rule 11 for the purposes 
of securities litigation that falls within its coverage, and makes the 
imposition of sanctions mandatory. Upon a final adjudication of a case, 
the PSLRA requires courts to make written findings on whether the 
parties have complied with Rule 11. In other words, no motion for 
sanctions needs to be filed.
  At the conclusion of the case, a judge must review the case for 
compliance with Rule 11 and, if he finds that there has been a 
violation, he must impose sanctions.
  So addressing the damaging impact of frivolous lawsuits has had 
bipartisan support in the past. That bipartisan support should be even 
greater during these difficult economic times.
  Let's look at a few examples of the type of lawsuits that businesses 
must contend with:
  In July 2009, three New Jersey residents, backed by an advocacy 
group, filed a class action lawsuit against several hot dog 
manufacturers claiming they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot 
dogs. None of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer. The lawsuit 
sought damages in the amount of the total cost of the plaintiffs' hot 
dog purchases and a requirement that the companies place a new label on 
packages and advertising reading: ``Warning: Consuming hot dogs and 
other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.''
  The case was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thus, a Federal 
court held that the plaintiffs had failed to even allege a claim, as a 
matter of law.
  In another case, a customer alleged that a wild bird ``attacked'' her 
while in a Lowe's outdoor garden center, causing her head injuries. She 
claimed negligence and a violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act. 
She maintained that the wild birds created a dangerous condition on the 
property and that Lowe's failed to exercise ordinary care to ensure 
that the premises were reasonably safe and failed to prevent the birds 
from entering the garden center.
  A Federal court entered summary judgment in favor of Lowe's holding 
that a ``reasonable plaintiff'' either would have noticed the birds or 
understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with 
plants. The court also held that Lowe's was not the ``owner'' of the 
birds, a necessary element of the customer's statutory claim.
  These are just two examples of the scores of frivolous lawsuits that 
American businesses must contend with each year.
  Requiring sanctions when judges find lawsuits are frivolous will 
deter these types of cases from being brought. The savings will result 
in cost savings for businesses and new jobs for American workers.
  The time for words and rhetoric has long since passed. If the 
President means what he is saying about creating jobs, then we must 
take action. We need to help private business spur job creation. LARA 
is action. LARA is a step in the right direction.
  I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Burr, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Brown of 
        Ohio, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Tester, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Portman, and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 534. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain 
small producers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Crapo and I are reintroducing 
legislation to assist small brewers across the country. The Brewer's 
Employment and Excise Relief, BEER, Act of 2011 would reduce the excise 
tax on domestic small beer producers as well as update the definition 
of what constitutes a small brewer to reflect today's market. Senators 
Wyden, Snowe, Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Burr, Mikulski, Scott Brown, 
Merkley, Wicker, Sherrod Brown, Chambliss, Tester, Cochran, and 
Cantwell are cosponsors of this legislation.
  As our economy continues on a track to recovery, we should remain 
focused on reducing unemployment and putting American's back to work. 
This legislation will do just that by helping an industry that is 
hiring and plans on expanding. Massachusetts is home to 38 small 
breweries.
  Though there has been a continued increase in consumer demand for the 
unique brews created by these small brewers, these beer producers 
operate at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the largest brewers 
in this country. While demand is growing, small brewers account for 
just 5 percent of beer sales nationwide and they face higher costs for 
production, raw materials, and market entry when compared to their much 
larger counterparts.
  The BEER Act legislation will revise the classification of a domestic 
small brewer, a definition that has not been updated since 1976. Under 
current law, small brewers are limited to those that produce 2 million 
barrels of beer per year. This legislation would update and raise the 
ceiling for the small brewer tax rate to 6 million barrels per year to 
reflect the original intent of differentiation between the large and 
small brewers. The largest beer producer in America used to produce 45 
million barrels annually and that has increased to over 100 million 
barrels.

[[Page S1511]]

  This legislation will also lower the excise tax rate on these small 
brewers on their first 60,000 barrels produced from $7 per barrel to 
$3.50 per barrel. Currently for the production over 60,000 barrels up 
to 2 million barrels, these brewers pay $18 per barrel in taxes, the 
same amount that the large brewers pay. This legislation would reduce 
that rate for small brewers to $16 per barrel.
  Small brewers employ nearly 100,000 people nationwide. This 
legislation will provide tax relief for this important industry, and 
allow these companies to expand both their production and their work 
force. A March 2010 economic analysis of this legislation done by Dr. 
John Friedman of Harvard University has estimated that the legislation 
will stimulate job creation at a rate of 2,700 new jobs in the first 
year to 18 months, with an additional 375 new jobs each year for the 
following 4 years.
  The benefits do not simply begin and end with the ability for these 
small breweries to grow. This legislation would benefit the consumer 
buying a 6 pack of Sierra Nevada or Harpoon in their local supermarket 
where prices on craft beer would be reduced by about 20 cents per case. 
The farms in the states that produce the barely, hops, and other 
materials that go into these fine brews would also see an increased 
demand for their products.
  This legislation would provide important benefits to America's small 
brewers and spur economic activity. It will provide relief and allow 
them to expand to meet the demands of a growing marketplace. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and support small, domestic beer 
producers.

                          ____________________