[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1829-S1851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Begich, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 604. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for the coverage of marriage and family therapist services and 
mental health counselor services under part B of the Medicare program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President. I am honored to join my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, in introducing a bill essential to 
enhancing the delivery of mental health services to our senior 
citizens, The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2011. We 
are pleased to be joined by Sens. Sherrod Brown, Inouye, Tim Johnson, 
Begich, and Durbin in this effort.
  Currently, there are limitations on the types of mental health 
practitioners who may be reimbursed for services in the Medicare 
program. Our legislation permits mental health counselors and marriage 
and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services, and it pays 
them at the rate of clinical social workers. With this legislation, 
seniors will have more opportunities as part of their Medicare benefit 
to access professional mental health counseling assistance.
  Throughout the United States there are approximately 77 million older 
adults living in 3,000 so-called ``mental health profession shortage 
areas.'' Moreover, 50 percent of rural counties have no practicing 
psychiatrists or psychologists. Seniors living in these areas will be 
the primary beneficiaries of our efforts.
  Mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists are often 
the only mental health providers in some communities, and yet presently 
they are not recognized within the Medicare program appropriately. 
These therapists have equivalent or greater training, education and 
practice rights as some existing provider groups that can bill for 
their services through Medicare.
  Additionally, other government agencies, including The National 
Health Service Corp, the Veteran's Administration and TRICARE, already

[[Page S1830]]

recognize these mental health professionals and reimburse for their 
services. We need to utilize the skills of these providers and ensure 
that seniors have access to them. These professionals play a critical 
role in the delivery of our nation's mental health care.
  In Oregon, the passage of this legislation will focus the talents of 
over 2,000 additional, qualified providers on the mental health issues 
of one of our most vulnerable populations. This represents a common 
sense approach to relieving a persistent and chronic healthcare 
workforce shortage.
  I would also like to take a moment to recognize the contributions of 
one of our former colleagues in the Senate who led our efforts in the 
last Congress to pass similar legislation. Sen. Blanche Lincoln was a 
strong advocate for health policies that benefited seniors and those in 
rural areas. This bill is a testament to her decade long commitment to 
these issues and her unflagging support for those in need of mental 
health care in underserved areas.
  Finally, I commend our mental health professionals nationwide, for 
their dedicated work and efforts, and I encourage passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from 
Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Seniors Mental Health 
Access Improvement Act. For over a decade, Senator Wyden has been a 
strong voice advocating for rural specific health care policies here in 
the United States Senate. I am proud to join him as we fight to ensure 
Medicare patients living in rural and frontier states have access to 
and choice of mental health professionals.
  The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act would permit 
Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Professional Counselors to 
bill Medicare directly for services. These providers would receive 75 
percent of the psychiatrist and psychologist rate for the same 
services. I want my colleagues to know that this legislation does not 
expand covered Medicare services. It would simply give Medicare 
patients living in isolated, frontier States like Wyoming more mental 
health provider choices.
  Today, approximately 75 percent of the over 3,000 nationally 
designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in 
rural areas. Over half of all rural counties have no mental health 
services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers 
as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a 
psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker.
  Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional 
shortage area. Wyoming has approximately 215 psychologists, 37 
psychiatrists and 418 clinical social workers for a total of 670 
Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors 
Mental Health Access Improvement Act would almost double the number of 
mental health providers available to treat seniors in my State--with 
the addition of 659 licensed professional counselors and 83 marriage 
and family therapists currently licensed to practice.
  Medicare patients in Wyoming are often forced to travel long 
distances to see mental health providers currently recognized by the 
Medicare program. To make matters worse, rural and frontier communities 
have extreme difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially 
mental health providers. In many small towns, a Licensed Professional 
Counselor or a Marriage and Family Therapist is the only mental health 
care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--only 
compounds the situation because psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, 
clinical social workers, and clinical nurse specialists are the only 
providers able to bill Medicare for mental health services.
  It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of 
Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. 
They play a critical role in the Nation's mental health care delivery 
system. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the 
curriculum of a masters level social worker, and yet are excluded from 
the Medicare program.
  I believe this bill is critically important to the health and well-
being of our nation's seniors, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to 
become a cosponsor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Manchin, Mrs. Hagan, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 605. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to place 
synthetic drugs in Schedule I; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, all too often we learn of new and 
emerging drug threats to our communities that often have a huge 
negative impact on our youth. When these drug threats emerge it is 
crucial that we unite to halt the spread of the problem before it 
consumes families and communities.
  Today we are confronted with new and very dangerous substances 
packaged as innocent products. Specifically, more and more kids are 
able to go online or to the nearest novelty store at the local shopping 
mall and purchase incense laced with compounds that seriously alter the 
mind. These products are commonly referred to as ``K2''or ``Spice'' 
among other names. Although these products contain a label that states 
that the product is not for human consumption, kids and drug users are 
smoking these products in order to obtain a ``legal high.''
  It is believed that these products emerged on the scene beginning 
about 4 or 5 years ago and their use spread quickly throughout Europe. 
According to a study conducted by the European Centre for Drugs and 
Drug Addiction, most of the chemical compounds found in ``K2'' are not 
reported on the label. This study concluded that the compounds are not 
listed because there is a deliberate marketing strategy to represent 
this product as a natural substance.
  However, these products are anything but natural. Most of the 
chemical compounds the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified 
within K2 products were invented by Dr. John W. Huffman of Clemson 
University in the 1990's for research purposes. These compounds were 
never intended to be used for any other purpose than research. Dr. 
Huffman developed these compounds to further understand endocannabinoid 
receptors in the body. They were only tested on mice and never tested 
on humans. No long term effects of their use are currently known.
  As more and more people are experimenting with K2 it is becoming 
completely evident that their use is anything but safe. The American 
Association of Poison Control Centers reports significant increases in 
the amount of calls concerning these products. There were only 13 calls 
related to K2 use reported for 2009, but there were over 1,000 calls 
concerning K2 use in 2010. Common effects reported by emergency room 
doctors include: increased agitation, elevated heart rate and blood 
pressure, hallucinations, and seizures. Effects from the highs from 
these synthetic drugs are reported to last as few as several hours and 
as long as one week. Dr. Huffman stated that since so little research 
has been conducted on these compounds that using any one of them would 
be like, ``playing Russian roulette.''
  In fact, Dr. Anthony Scalzo, a professor of emergency medicine at St. 
Louis University, reports that the compounds are significantly more 
potent than the active ingredients of marijuana. Dr. Scalzo states that 
what is troubling is the fact that the amount of compounds varies from 
product to product so no one can be sure exactly the amount of the drug 
they are putting in their body. Dr. Scalzo states that this can lead to 
significant problems such as altering of mind, addiction, injury, and 
even death.
  According to various news articles across the nation, K2 can cause 
serious erratic and criminal behavior. In Mooresville, Indiana police 
arrested a group of teens after they were connected to a string of 
burglaries while high on K2. Another case in Honolulu, Hawaii shows 
police arrested a 23-year-old man after he tried to throw his 
girlfriend off an 11th floor balcony after smoking K2. A 14-year-old 
boy in Missouri nearly threw himself out of a 5th story window after 
smoking K2. Once the teen got over his high he denied having any 
suicidal intentions. Doctors believe he was hallucinating at the time 
of this incident.
  K2 use is also causing serious health problems and increased visits 
to the

[[Page S1831]]

emergency room. A Louisiana teen said he became very ill after trying 
K2. The teen said he experienced numbness starting at his feet and 
traveling to his head. He was nauseous, light-headed and was having 
hallucinations. This teen stated that K2 is being passed around at 
school and that many people were trying it without fear, assuming it 
was safe because it was legal. A 21-year-old man, from Greenfield, 
Indiana repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck while hallucinating on 
K2.
  Regrettably, K2 use also has deadly consequences. On June 6, 2010, 
David Rozga, a recent 18-year-old Indianola, Iowa high school graduate 
smoked a package of K2 along with his friends before going to a concert 
thinking it was harmless fun. According to his parents, David and his 
friends purchased this product at a mall in Des Moines after hearing 
about it from some college students who were home for the summer. After 
smoking this product, David's friends reported that David became highly 
agitated and terrified. When he got home, he found a family shotgun and 
committed suicide approximately 90 minutes after smoking K2. The 
Indianola police believe David was under the influence of K2 at the 
time of his death. David's parents and many in the community who knew 
David were completely shocked and saddened by this event. David was 
looking forward to starting his college career at the University of 
Northern Iowa in the fall. As a result, the Iowa Pharmacy Board placed 
an emergency ban on K2 products in Iowa beginning on July 21, 2010. A 
permanent ban is currently being considered in the legislature.
  David's tragic death may have been the first case in the United 
States of synthetic drug use leading to someone's death, but sadly it 
was only the beginning. A month after David's tragic death, police 
report that a 28-year-old Middletown, Indiana mother of two passed away 
after smoking a lethal dose of K2. This woman's godson reported that 
anyone could get K2 easily because it can be sold to anybody at any 
price at any time. This last August, a recent 19-year-old Lake 
Highlands High School graduate in Dallas, TX, passed away after smoking 
K2. The medical examiner confirmed that this boy had K2 in his system 
at the time of his death. Even more disturbing is the involvement of 
synthetic drugs in a recent school shooting that occurred in Omaha, 
Nebraska in January of 2011. Robert Butler, Jr. shot and killed himself 
and Dr. Vicki Kaspar, the assistant principal at the school. Doctors 
have confirmed that Robert Butler had K2 in his system at the time of 
the shooting.
  These incidents throughout the country give me great concern that 
synthetic drug use, especially K2 use, is a dangerous and growing 
problem. Many states, including Iowa, have acted to ban the sale and 
possession of the chemical compounds found in these products. Many more 
states, counties and communities throughout the country have proposed 
bans or are in the process of banning these products. The DEA has 
administratively scheduled five chemicals found in K2. However, this 
ban will only last for one year with an option to extend the ban for an 
additional 6 months. There is no guarantee that the chemicals will be 
permanently banned in the timeframe allowed.
  It is time to stop the use and trafficking of these products before 
more tragedies occur. This is why I am pleased that my colleague, 
Senator Feinstein, is joining me in introducing the David Mitchell 
Rozga Act. Although David Rozga is one victim of many from these 
terrible drugs, his tragic death highlights the damaging nature of 
these substances and the great loss that they incur to our society. 
This legislation will take the chemicals the DEA has identified within 
K2 products and places them as Schedule I narcotics with other deadly 
drugs like meth and cocaine. The legislation will also amend the 
Controlled Substances Act, doubling the timeframe the Drug Enforcement 
Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services have to 
emergency schedule substances from 18 months to 36 months. This will 
allow for dangerous substances to be quickly removed from the market 
while being studied for permanent scheduling. I am grateful that the 
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, a group that represents more 
than 5,000 local community anti-drug coalitions throughout the nation, 
is endorsing this legislation to ban these dangerous synthetic drugs 
from our society.
  It is clear that the sale and use of synthetic drugs is a growing 
problem. People believe, like David Rozga believed, these products are 
safe because they can buy them online or at the nearest shopping mall. 
We need to do a better job at educating the public and our communities 
about the dangers these products present and nip this problem in the 
bud before it grows and leads to more tragedy. I urge my colleagues to 
join us in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 607. A bill to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as 
wilderness, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and 
non-Federal land and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Recources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce Wilderness 
legislation to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures. This bill is 
a reintroduction of legislation that I introduced in the last Congress 
and I am pleased that Senator Merkley is again joining me in 
cosponsoring this legislation. Significant progress was made in the 
last Congress in moving the bill towards passage, but unfortunately it 
failed to get passed before the Congress ended. The legislation I 
introduce today reflects the work I undertook with the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and the Bureau of Land Management to 
prepare the bill for markup in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee.
  The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act of 2011 will do 
more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's 
economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my State to 
experience first-hand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands 
preserved by this bill.
  This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered 
ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new 
Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. This is even more Wilderness 
than originally in the legislation I introduced in the last Congress. 
Thanks to an additional land exchange it was possible to add additional 
lands to the Wilderness proposal. The fractured land ownership in this 
area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas 
when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and 
misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will 
solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while 
giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home.
  The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven 
Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills 
of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the 
desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established last Congress as a 
result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the 
John Day River from Spring Basin.
  With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second-
longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a 
place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and 
Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as 
well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and 
native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land 
consolidation between public and private landowners, this bill will 
allow for better management and easier public access for this important 
natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private 
land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many Federal 
lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other 
outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-
value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be 
consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public 
safety, improve land management, and increase public access and 
recreational opportunities. This solution will create an incredible, 
new heritage for public lands recreationists

[[Page S1832]]

who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and 
thriving.
  Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more 
campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry 
hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds 
without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's 
private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John 
Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. 
Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage 
their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers.
  One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's 
Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp 
that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. 
This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that on the 
ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the 
Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the 
continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic 
dividends to the local community.
  The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described 
as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly 5 miles of new river 
access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; 
better management for private landowners and public agencies; and 
important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. 
This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result 
when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft 
solutions that will work for everyone. All three of the counties 
involved in this legislation, Wheeler, Wasco and Jefferson, have 
endorsed this proposal as well as a number of user and recreation 
groups. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert 
Association, Young Life and Forrest Reinhardt, and Matt Smith for their 
role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all 
Oregonians.
  Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the 
economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural 
areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away 
to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond 
tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities 
that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to 
Oregon. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help 
make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently 
connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for 
generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 610. A bill to provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 
acres of land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian 
Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's 
attention H.R. 473. This is the HALE Scouts Act, and the House author 
is Congressman Dan Boren, D-Okla. I am announcing today introduction of 
a companion measure in the Senate, and I look forward to working 
towards its enactment into law in the 112th Congress.
  This bill authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to sell, at fair-market 
value, 140 acres of land in Southeast Oklahoma to an Oklahoma Boy 
Scouts group, the Indian Nations Council of Boy Scouts, which has a 
camp site adjacent to this land. This campsite hosts 6,500 campers 
every year and urgently needs the new expansion.
  In the 110th Congress, this same bill passed the House by a vote of 
370-2 in the form of H.R. 2675. The bill gained even more support in 
the 111th Congress passing through the House by a vote of 388-0 as H.R. 
310. CBO has written that it has no cost, and the U.S. Forest Service 
testified before the relevant House subcommittee that it does not 
oppose the bill. Much work has gone into this bill to get it to this 
point, including hearings and House floor consideration. Senate passage 
represents final action necessary for its completion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 611. A bill to provide greater technical resources to FCC 
Commissioners; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to 
reintroduce legislation that provides greater technical resources to 
the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. Such 
resources are essential to making sound regulatory decisions and being 
a more effective technical agency--especially in this era of rapid 
innovation in the industries under the Commission's jurisdiction.
  Specifically, the FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening or 
``FCC TECH'' Act would allow Commissioners'' to appoint a staff 
member--an electrical engineer or computer scientist--to provide in-
depth technical consultation, and commission a study by the National 
Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and 
the availability of technical personnel at FCC. The study would include 
an examination of the FCC's technical policy decision-making, current 
technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring 
processes of technical staff and engineers, and make specific 
recommendations to improve these areas.
  Over the past several years, I have shared the concerns voiced by the 
technical community and even some Commissioners themselves about the 
lack of technical resources and expertise at the FCC. Such concern is 
warranted. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has 
fewer than 270--an astonishing 63 percent reduction--even though the 
FCC now must face more technical issues concerning the Internet, 
advanced wireless communications, commercial cable & satellite 
industries, and broadband. It should be noted that engineering staff 
currently only accounts for a dismally low 14 percent of the FCC's 
workforce--in 1948 that figure was more than 50 percent.
  A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-
10-79) provides additional evidence of the need for this legislation. 
The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting 
and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency 
and informed nature of FCC's decision-making process.'' Furthermore, 
the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the 
expertise needed to adapt to a changing market place.''
  So in a time when citizens are demanding more effective and efficient 
government and zero government waste, taking such steps as prescribed 
by this legislation will ensure the FCC is adequately equipped legally 
and technically to properly craft policy. It should be noted this 
legislation does not require new staff--it just makes better use of 
them. In addition, streamlining FCC processes and rulemakings will make 
sure the Commission keeps pace with the dynamics of the industry it 
oversees, which is important in order for U.S. companies to continue to 
be competitive in this global economy.
  In a letter I wrote to Chairman Genachowski last year, I highlighted 
several outstanding spectrum proceedings that I urged the Commission to 
conclude. The proceedings I mentioned had a common characteristic that 
concerned me--all of them had been open for three years or longer, and 
another related proceeding had been pending for well over a decade. 
This regulatory delay and uncertainty due to the Commission's inaction 
adversely affects American businesses, which request technical waivers 
or file petitions to better compete domestically and internationally, 
and suppresses innovation and the jobs associated with it. We must make 
sure the Commission is a catalyst to innovation and jobs, not an 
inhibitor.

  Even the general public is aware of the significant technical deficit 
that exists at the Commission and the importance of increasing its 
technical aptitude--one of the top public recommendations on the FCC's 
reform website, reboot.fcc.gov, is to ``require at least one FCC 
Commissioner to be an engineer.''
  This Administration has stressed the importance of innovation being a 
vital component in our economic recovery, so allowing a shortage of 
technical

[[Page S1833]]

staff to exist at an agency responsible for regulating very technical 
industries that will be the main drivers for innovation is 
counterintuitive. The President has also placed a major emphasis on 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education in 
order to enhance our nation's competitiveness and economic wellbeing in 
the global economy yet, engineers only constitute 14 percent of the 
FCC's workforce and, it is my understanding, there is only one engineer 
in a senior management role at the Commission today--the government's 
technical expert agency.
  This legislation enhances technical resources at the FCC so it will 
be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing 
technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our 
nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and 
it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation 
necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. It is also an 
essential component to execute the FCC's recently released National 
Broadband Plan, which includes several technically complex initiatives.
  Last Congress, several technical organizations expressed support for 
the legislation--the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Association for Computing Machinery, 
and the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. 
Also, prominent individuals in this field, such as Vint Cerf, and 
former Senior FCC Technical Officials Dale Hatfield, Dave Farber, and 
Robert Powers support the legislation.
  In the past, Chairman Genachowski has stated ``the country expects 
the FCC to be an expert agency.'' Being an expert agency starts with 
having the technical expertise to comprehensively understand and 
examine the issues that are within its jurisdiction and also acting on 
those issues in a timely manner. If it doesn't, our nation's technical 
leadership in telecommunications could continue to erode due to 
regulatory bottlenecks that are created at the Commission from 
unresolved proceedings and petitions. Removing the bottlenecks that 
exist through streamlining processes and removing bureaucracy will 
reduce government expenses and waste over the long term.
  This bill takes steps toward properly addressing glaring technical 
deficiencies at the Commission, which left unaddressed could continue 
to hamper American innovation and competitiveness. This is absolutely 
critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the 
implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical 
catalysts of innovation. That is why I sincerely hope that my 
colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this critical 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 612. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Confirmation Act to 
require the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategic 
petroleum demand response plan to reduce the consumption of petroleum 
products by the Federal Government; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with 
Senator Merkley that will provide the President of the United States 
with emergency powers to aggressively reduce the Federal Government's 
demand for energy.
  The Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will be an additional 
tool to address rapidly rising energy prices by reducing our country's 
demand for oil. The political instability in the Middle East reminds us 
that this region, which holds the largest reserves of oil in the world, 
has had profound implications on our country's economy by dramatically 
affecting the price of oil. Although the attention has been on 
potential supply disruption, our country also consumes nearly 17 
million barrels of oil per day and through aggressive measures the 
Federal Government can lead our country in reducing its energy bill, 
curtailing its consumption of oil, and reducing the price of oil for 
consumers.
  As we encounter these price spikes, some have called for a release of 
oil from our country's strategic petroleum reserve. The fact is prior 
to releasing our country's strategic reserves we must develop policies 
that prioritize the Federal Government's consumption of these critical 
oil supplies. The Federal Government can reduce nonemergency travel, 
reduce congestion on the roads by providing flexible work hours, 
decrease the use of oil in heating and cooling buildings, and work with 
local and state governments to cut consumption as well. We must develop 
a strategic petroleum strategy that reflects the fact that prices are 
dictated by both supply and demand and the Strategic Petroleum Demand 
Response Act will address the demand side of the equation.
  Since the start of the year the price for West Texas Intermediate has 
increased by 16 percent and the week of February 28 encountered the 
second highest net increase in gasoline prices in our country's 
history. While I strongly believe that we need to develop specific 
long-term strategies that build on the success of fuel economy 
standards and reduce our consumption of oil, this legislation will 
allow the President to take immediate and decisive action to address 
any energy crisis through both supply and demand.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 613. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act to permit a prevailing party in an action or proceeding brought to 
enforce the Act to be awarded expert witness fees and certain other 
expenses; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, ensuring that all students, regardless of 
background or ability, receive an education that gives them the 
opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life has always been a 
major focus of my career in public service. To achieve this goal, I 
have fought especially hard for students with disabilities to have 
access to the general education curriculum and the services and 
supports they need to succeed, and to safeguard their rights under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That is why I am 
pleased to introduce the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which my 
colleague Rep. Van Hollen will also be introducing in the House today. 
This critical legislation will remove the financial barrier that 
families, especially low- and middle-income families, face as they 
pursue their children's rights to the free, appropriate public 
education they deserve and are entitled to under the Fourteenth 
Amendment.
  When Congress originally passed IDEA, we recognized the vital 
importance of parent and school collaboration in special education and 
required they jointly develop an Individualized Education Plan, IEP, to 
identify goals to promote the academic achievement of students with 
disabilities. In general, this partnership has served students well. 
There are, however, times when schools have not fulfilled their 
responsibilities to provide an appropriate education. In these cases, 
IDEA provides parents the right to challenge the schools through 
mediation and due process. To make their argument, families often need 
access to expert witnesses who can assess the student's needs and 
testify about whether the current IEP meets those needs. These expert 
witnesses are a resource that many families cannot afford, but without 
access to them, families may be unable to make their case.
  When Congress amended IDEA in 1986, it recognized the financial 
barriers that parents face in pursuing due process to resolve 
disagreements with their school and specified in the Conference 
Committee Report that when the court finds in favor of the parents a 
judge could award attorney's fees, including ``reasonable expenses and 
fees of expert witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or 
evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation of the 
parent or guardian's case.'' For years, parents who prevailed in 
judicial proceedings were awarded these fees, as Congress intended. But 
in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School 
District v. Murphy that courts could no longer award these fees because 
Congress made its intention explicit in the Conference Report rather 
than in statute. As a result, many parents are discouraged and even 
prevented from pursuing meritorious cases to secure the rights of their 
children. Low- and middle-income families are particularly hard hit.

[[Page S1834]]

  This IDEA Fairness Restoration Act clarifies Congress' express intent 
that parents should recover expert witness fees, as they currently can 
do with attorneys' fees, if they prove that the school system has 
wrongfully denied their child an appropriate education as defined by 
IDEA. By including ``reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses 
and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be 
necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case'' and 
reestablishing the right of judges to award such fees to parents who 
prevail in IDEA cases, as Congress intended, this legislation will 
level the playing field and restore the ability of low- and middle-
income parents to be effective advocates for their children's 
educational needs.
  This legislation is an essential step for protecting the rights of 
students with disabilities and ensuring that all families, regardless 
of their financial resources, can advocate for and protect their 
children's rights through due process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 614. A bill to require the Attorney General to consult with 
appropriate officials within the executive branch prior to making the 
decision to try an unprivileged enemy belligerent in Federal Court; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator 
Lieberman the Securing Terrorist Intelligence Act. Last Congress, the 
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard 
testimony from the three top U.S. intelligence officials about the 
errors the Federal Government made in handling the unsuccessful 2009 
Christmas Day terrorist plot. We dodged a bullet that day when Umar 
Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a 
bomb on Northwest flight 253 in the skies above Detroit.
  While critical information was not shared prior to Abdulmatallab 
boarding that plane, a significant error also was committed by U.S. 
officials after that foreign terrorist had already been detained in 
Detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of 
valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. 
The error became clear during my questioning of the top intelligence 
officials at the committee's hearing held in response to this failed 
attack.
  I was stunned to learn that the decision had been made to place this 
captured terrorist into the U.S. civilian criminal court system after 
just 50 minutes of interrogation--and without any consultation with the 
Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National 
Counterterrorism Center, or the Secretary Homeland Security. That 
decision was critical. The determination to charge Abdulmutallab in 
civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional 
intelligence information. We know that the interrogation of captured 
terrorists can provide critical intelligence and save American lives, 
but our civil justice system, as opposed to the military detention and 
tribunal system established by Congress and the President, encourages 
terrorists to ``lawyer up'' and to stop answering questions.
  Indeed, that was what happened in the case of Abdulmutallab. He had 
provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials 
immediately after his capture, and we likely would have obtained more 
information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy 
belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. 
Unfortunately, once he was read his Miranda rights and given a lawyer 
at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions, and that 
is exactly what he did.
  That poor decision-making may well have prevented us from finding out 
more of the plot's organizers, planners, financiers, logistics support, 
and other key players. In addition, we may have found out more about 
future plots originating in Yemen targeting American citizens--possibly 
even the thwarted October 2010 printer cartridge attacks. Good 
intelligence is critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before 
they are executed. We know that lawful interrogations of terrorist 
suspects can provide valuable intelligence. Deciding to charge 
Abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting 
three of our nation's top intelligence officials simply defies common 
sense.
  It has been over a year since the arrest, and we are all very 
thankful that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in 
America since then. We all know, however, the threat persists. That is 
why we must redouble our efforts and ensure that when the next 
terrorist is captured, proper action is taken so we do not miss another 
opportunity to gain valuable intelligence that could save American 
lives.
  To correct this failure and to ensure that our nation's senior 
intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try 
future foreign terrorists in civilian court, I am reintroducing a bill 
that would require this crucial consultation. I am very pleased to be 
joined by the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator 
Lieberman, who has been such a leader in this area.
  Specifically, our bill would require the Attorney General to consult 
with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the 
National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
and the Secretary of Defense before initiating a custodial 
interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civilian criminal charges 
against them. These officials are in the best position to know what 
other threats the United States is facing from terrorists and to assess 
the need to gather more intelligence on those threats.
  If there is a disagreement among the Attorney General and these 
intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the 
detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would 
require the President to resolve the disagreement. Only the President 
would be permitted to direct the initiation of civilian law enforcement 
actions--balancing his constitutional responsibilities as Commander in 
Chief and as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
  To be clear, this legislation would not deprive the President of any 
investigative or prosecutorial tool. It would not preclude a decision 
to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our 
civilian criminal justice system. It would simply require that the 
Attorney General coordinate and consult with our top intelligence 
officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection 
of critical additional intelligence information.
  This consultation requirement is not unprecedented. Section 811 of 
the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 requires 
the Director of the FBI and the head of a department or agency with a 
potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any 
decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional 
intelligence can be gathered on his activities.
  As the Senate Intelligence Committee noted in its report on the 
legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement:

       While prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the 
     Department of Justice officials, it stands to reason that in 
     cases designed to protect our national security--such as 
     espionage and terrorism cases--prosecutors should ensure that 
     they do not make decisions that, in fact, end up harming the 
     national security.

  The committee got it right. The committee went on to explain:

       [T]he determination of whether to leave a subject in place 
     should be retained by the host agency.

  The history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily 
reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of 
Abdulmutallab. In espionage cases, Congress has already recognized that 
when valuable intelligence is at stake, our national security should 
trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. This 
requirement must be extended to the most significant security threat 
facing our Nation--terrorism.
  I encourage the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation. 
The changes proposed are modest. They make common sense. But the 
consequences of a failure to act could be a matter of life and death.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 617. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain Federal land to Elko County, Nevada, and

[[Page S1835]]

to take land into trust for the Te-moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 
Indians of Nevada, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Elko 
Motocross and Tribal Conveyance Act of 2011. This bill would transfer 
two small parcels of public land to Elko County and the Elko Indian 
Colony and provide an important economic development opportunity to the 
people of Elko County.
  In my home State of Nevada, the Federal Government manages more than 
87 percent of the land--more than 61 million acres in all. As a result, 
our communities come to their congressional delegation for help 
remedying problems that are often handled on the state or local level 
in other parts of the country.
  The first part of our legislation would convey approximately 300 
acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, 
Elko Field Office to Elko County. This proposal is strongly supported 
by the local community as a way to provide for a variety of motorized 
recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors of Elko. 
Off-highway vehicles are a popular form of recreation throughout Nevada 
and our citizens enthusiastically support safe and sustainable 
motorized outdoor activities.
  This legislation will help Elko County develop a centralized, 
multipurpose recreational facility on the western edge of the City of 
Elko with easy access to Interstate 80. The new park will draw OHV 
enthusiasts from across northeastern Nevada and beyond, providing a 
much needed economic boost to local businesses. Beyond the convenient 
location, economic benefits, and potential for diverse recreational 
opportunities at the proposed Elko Motocross Park site, this new 
facility will serve as a place for people to learn responsible use and 
enjoyment of these recreational vehicles.
  Title two of our bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
expand the Elko Indian Colony by taking approximately 373 acres of land 
into trust for the Elko Band to address their compelling need for 
additional land. The Elko Band is one of four constituent bands that 
make up the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Each 
Band has a separate reservation or colony in northeastern Nevada. While 
the Elko Band's population has steadily grown, their land base has 
remained the same for over 75 years.
  The Elko Indian Colony has always been a thriving part of the greater 
Elko community. When Elko was established as a railroad town in 1868, 
Shoshone families lived nearby, working on the railroad as well as in 
the nearby mines and on local ranches. Despite government efforts to 
relocate the Elko Band in the late nineteenth century, these families 
persevered and remained in the Elko area. In 1918, President Woodrow 
Wilson created the Elko Indian Colony when he reserved 160 acres for 
the Shoshone Indians near Elko by executive order.
  While more than half of the Te-Moak's Tribe's enrolled members 
continue to live and work in Elko, it is the unfortunate truth that 
over 350 tribal members must live outside of the colony. The Elko 
Colony has one of the smallest land bases of the four constituent bands 
and it lacks adequate land for housing and community development. Our 
legislation would address this need by making land available for 
residential development and for traditional uses, such as ceremonial 
gatherings, hunting and plant collecting.
  It is always encouraging when communities come together to support 
projects like these and we are grateful for their collective work on 
this effort. This bill is vital to the growing communities we serve. We 
look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member 
Murkowski and the other distinguished members of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to move this bill through their process.
  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. 617

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Elko 
     Motocross and Tribal Conveyance Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

                TITLE I--ELKO MOTOCROSS LAND CONVEYANCE

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Conveyance of land to county.

                 TITLE II--ELKO INDIAN COLONY EXPANSION

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Land to be held in trust for the Te-moak Tribe of Western 
              Shoshone Indians of Nevada.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.

                TITLE I--ELKO MOTOCROSS LAND CONVEYANCE

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) City.--The term ``city'' means the city of Elko, 
     Nevada.
       (2) County.--The term ``county'' means the county of Elko, 
     Nevada.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Elko 
     Motocross Park'' and dated January 9, 2010.

     SEC. 102. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO COUNTY.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, subject to valid existing rights and 
     the provisions of this section, the Secretary shall convey to 
     the county, without consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the land described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of approximately 275 acres of land 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Elko District, 
     Nevada, as generally depicted on the map as ``Elko Motocross 
     Park''.
       (c) Map and Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall finalize the legal 
     description of the parcel to be conveyed under this section.
       (2) Minor errors.--The Secretary may correct any minor 
     error in--
       (A) the map; or
       (B) the legal description.
       (3) Availability.--The map and legal description shall be 
     on file and available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Use of Conveyed Land.--The land conveyed under this 
     section shall be used only as a motocross, bicycle, off-
     highway vehicle, or stock car racing area, or for any other 
     public purpose consistent with uses allowed under the Act of 
     June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and Public 
     Purposes Act''), (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.).
       (e) Administrative Costs.--The Secretary shall require the 
     county to pay all survey costs and other administrative costs 
     necessary for the preparation and completion of any patents 
     for, and transfers of title to, the land described in 
     subsection (b).
       (f) Reversion.--If the land conveyed under this section 
     ceases to be used for a public purpose in accordance with 
     subsection (d), the land shall, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, revert to the United States.

                 TITLE II--ELKO INDIAN COLONY EXPANSION

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Te-moak 
     Tribal Land Expansion'', dated September 30, 2008, and on 
     file and available for public inspection in the appropriate 
     offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (2) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Te-moak Tribe of 
     Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, which is a federally 
     recognized Indian tribe.

     SEC. 202. LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE TE-MOAK TRIBE OF 
                   WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     land described in subsection (b)--
       (1) shall be held in trust by the United States for the 
     benefit and use of the Tribe; and
       (2) shall be part of the reservation of the Tribe.
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of approximately 373 acres of land 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management, as generally 
     depicted on the map as ``Lands to be Held in Trust''.
       (c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a survey 
     of the boundary lines to establish the boundaries of the land 
     taken into trust under subsection (a).
       (d) Conditions.--
       (1) Gaming.--Land taken into trust under subsection (a) 
     shall not be eligible, or considered to have been taken into 
     trust, for class II gaming or class III gaming (as those 
     terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).
       (2) Use of trust land.--
       (A) In general.--The Tribe shall use the land taken into 
     trust under subsection (a) only for--

[[Page S1836]]

       (i) traditional and customary uses;
       (ii) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe; 
     or
       (iii) residential or recreational development.
       (B) Other uses.--If the Tribe uses any portion of the land 
     taken into trust under subsection (a) for a purpose other 
     than a purpose described in subparagraph (A), the Tribe shall 
     pay to the Secretary an amount that is equal to the fair 
     market value of the portion of the land, as determined by an 
     appraisal.
       (C) Use of funds.--Any amounts received by the Secretary 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be--
       (i) deposited in the Federal Land Disposal Account 
     established by section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction 
     Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2305(a)); and
       (ii) used in accordance with that Act.
       (3) Thinning; landscape restoration.--With respect to the 
     land taken into trust under subsection (a), the Secretary, in 
     consultation and coordination with the Tribe, may carry out 
     any fuels reduction and other landscape restoration 
     activities on the land that is beneficial to the Tribe and 
     the Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
  S. 619. A bill to assist in the coordination among science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics efforts in the States, to 
strengthen the capacity of elementary schools, middle schools, and 
secondary schools to prepare students in science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, who will develop a computer 
small enough to fit into our eyeglasses? Who will build the first 
fully-automated, completely sustainable house or hospital? Which 
country will successfully test time travel?
  I hope that it will be the United States, but I am not confident. 
When we compare the science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, 
success of students globally, we are not in the lead.
  The President, Congress and our business community all agree that we 
must do better in order to compete and excel in STEM fields globally. 
If we are going to remain competitive, we must develop and retain high-
quality math and science teachers. We must provide those teachers with 
strong professional development so they can develop higher-order 
thinking in their students. We must encourage higher education leaders 
to strengthen K-8 teacher education programs to provide a deeper 
understanding of the content knowledge necessary to teach math and 
science. We must engage students earlier about possible careers in STEM 
fields.
  Our economic growth and our national security depend on a workforce 
skilled in STEM fields. The demand for scientists and engineers is 
expected to increase at four times the rate of other occupations. But 
our students just aren't performing well enough in math and science, 
and too few of them are pursuing careers in these technical fields.
  The biggest problems we face as a global society--including problems 
with food and water supply, safe housing, economic prosperity and 
energy efficiency--require excellence in STEM fields. But students are 
entering our high schools without a strong foundation in STEM. And 
colleges are not sufficiently preparing a diverse group of STEM 
graduates to excel in graduate school and STEM careers.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about one-
third of fourth graders and one-fifth of eighth graders cannot perform 
basic math computations. And U.S. high school seniors recently tested 
below the international average for 21 countries in mathematics and 
science. For example, only 34 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of 
eighth graders, and 21 percent of 12th graders test ``proficient'' in 
science on the national assessment of educational progress, or NAEP. We 
must invest in our teachers, students and leaders to surpass students 
in the major European and Asian countries that we currently lag behind.
  That is why today I am introducing the STEM Act, or STEM Support for 
Teachers in Education and Mentoring Act, will help us accomplish this 
goal.
  The STEM Act would identify best teaching practices. It would 
strengthen networks of teachers, colleges and businesses for STEM 
collaboration. It would create meaningful opportunities for teacher 
training and mentoring. The STEM Act also would establish a planning 
grant program for states to identify STEM skills needed by the 
workforce, and develop effective State STEM networks for communication 
and collaboration among businesses, schools teachers and 
administrators, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit 
organizations.
  Middle school is an important time in a student's career to be 
inspired by STEM possibilities. Our middle and high school teachers 
want more professional development to spark this interest. To give 
teachers and schools the tools they need to encourage and prepare 
students for STEM careers, the STEM Act would create training programs 
using best practice models of STEM master teachers, and provide summer 
institutes for current teachers and administrators to strengthen 
teacher effectiveness.
  There are programs in my home state of New Mexico that are piloting 
some of these initiatives. These efforts demonstrate how to increase 
teacher effectiveness to help students learn STEM subjects, and create 
opportunities for students to be inspired to pursue a STEM field.
  The Institute for Math and Science Education, IMSE, and the STEM 
Outreach Center at New Mexico State University help coordinate Pre K-20 
STEM education efforts across the state and region. Faculty and staff 
in the College of Education created a network of mathematicians, 
scientists, educational researchers, and business and community leaders 
to facilitate research and outreach grants.
  MC \2\--Mathematically Connected Communities is building a statewide 
learning community of mathematics educators, mathematicians, and public 
school leaders. MC \2\ offers summer mathematics academies to provide 
teachers with in-depth study of mathematics. It provides continuous 
professional development during the school year, helps create school 
district leadership teams, and develops web-based math resources. There 
is a similar program for science, called Scientifically Connected 
Communities, SC \2\.
  The Southern New Mexico Science, Engineering, Math and Aerospace 
Academy, SNM SEMAA, is a NASA-sponsored, after-school program for K-12 
that helps students who are traditionally under-represented in the 
Science, Engineering, Math, Aerospace, and Technology, SEMAT, fields. 
SEMAA engages students and their parents in inquiry-based learning and 
research through innovative, hands-on experience with new technologies.
  The Chemical Olympics organizes competitions in chemistry 
experimentation to increase interest in chemistry and the other 
sciences among secondary school students.
  NASA Summer of Innovation is a collaboration between the New Mexico 
Space Grant Consortium and STEM Outreach Center to prepare educators 
from across my state to coordinate a month-long summer camp in their 
hometowns that are designed to introduce students to inquiry-based 
science.
  Innovate-Educate encourages states to develop statewide networks that 
help create relationships and programs to advance STEM policies and 
best practices, aligned with industry needs.
  As a Nation, we cannot afford to lag behind other countries in 
preparing our students to succeed in science, technology, engineering 
and math. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these STEM 
initiatives, and preparing our teachers and students to take us into 
the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 623. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, 
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of 
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Graham to 
introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011, a bill that will curb 
the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of 
this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement 
agreements, is to keep important health and safety information hidden 
from the public. As we recognize Sunshine Week, this bipartisan, 
commonsense measure is an important step to improving transparency in 
our

[[Page S1837]]

courthouses by requiring judges to consider public health and safety 
before permitting secrecy agreements.
  This problem of court secrecy has been occurring for decades, and 
most often arises in product liability cases. Typically, an individual 
brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death 
that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The injured 
party often faces a large corporation that can spend a virtually 
unlimited amount of money defending the lawsuit, prolonging the time it 
takes to reach resolution. Facing a formidable opponent and mounting 
medical bills, a plaintiff often has no choice but to settle the 
litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim 
is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from 
revealing information disclosed during the litigation.
  Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep 
damaging information from getting out. But the American public incurs 
the loss because they remain unaware of critical public health and 
safety information that could potentially save lives.
  This concern about excessive secrecy is warranted by the long history 
of tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, pharmaceutical 
companies, medical device manufacturers, and others settling with 
victims and using the legal system to hide information which, if it 
became public, could protect the American people from future health and 
safety harms. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like 
protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company 
information, as well as personal identifying and classified 
information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected. 
But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the 
sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public, to protect 
a company's reputation or profit margin.
  One of the most famous cases of abuse of secrecy orders involved 
Bridgestone/Firestone tires. From 1992 to 2000, tread separations of 
various Bridgestone and Firestone tires caused accidents across the 
country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. 
Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, 
Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which 
included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston 
public television station broke the story, that the company 
acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it 
was too late. More than 250 people had died and more than 800 were 
injured as a result of the defective tires.
  If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were 
just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for 
legislation. But, unfortunately, the list of abuses goes on. There is 
the case of General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that 
GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks 
with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in 
fires involving trucks with these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM 
disclosed documents only under protective orders, and settled these 
cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained 
secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being 
discontinued.
  More recently, the world's largest automaker, Toyota, has faced a 
barrage of litigation relating to its recall of over 8 million cars due 
to sudden unintended acceleration problems, causing more than eighty 
deaths. After years of lawsuits, Congressional oversight hearings, and 
Toyota's efforts to keep settlements and product information secret, a 
California Federal judge finally made public thousands of previously 
sealed documents, noting that ``the business of this litigation should 
be in the public domain.'' Had a judge been required to weigh the 
public's interest in health and safety, as this legislation would 
require, perhaps we would have known more about the risks sooner and 
some of those lives could have been saved. Until we put the public 
interest on par with the interests of private litigants, public health 
and safety will remain at risk.
  This very issue is currently before a Federal judge in Orlando, FL. 
There, the court is faced with deciding whether AstraZeneca can keep 
under seal clinical studies about the harmful side effects of an 
antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. Plaintiffs' lawyers and Bloomberg News 
sued to force AstraZeneca to make public documents discovered in 
dismissed lawsuits. In 2009, the court unsealed some of the documents 
at question, but denied requests to release AstraZeneca's submissions 
to foreign regulators and sales representatives' notes on doctors' 
meetings. Despite a recent $68.5 million settlement, continued efforts 
to unseal crucial documents proved unsuccessful. This is exactly the 
sort of case where we need judges to consider public health and safety 
when deciding whether to allow a secrecy order.
  We are mindful of the risks to public health and safety that court 
secrecy orders can pose in the wake of last year's horrific BP oil 
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As the parties continue to fight over 
crucial documents, injured parties continue to accept secret 
settlements. We can only hope that information vital to public health 
and safety, which could protect against the next disaster, is not being 
shielded from us as well.
  The examples go on and on. At a 2007 hearing before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and 
Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley Jr. described his tragic personal story 
that demonstrates the implications of court endorsed secrecy. In 2002, 
Mr. Bradley's wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly caused 
by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the case, his 
attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. 
Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and confidential 
settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident, Cooper had 
managed to keep the design defect documents confidential. Prior to the 
end of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the 
condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept 
confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to 
documented evidence of design defects, consumers continue to remain in 
the dark about this life-threatening defect.
  In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to 
harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements 
required plaintiffs to agree ``not to communicate, publish or cause to 
be published . . . any statement . . . concerning the specific events, 
facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In those cases, 
the plaintiffs uncovered documents which showed that, through its own 
research, Lilly knew about the harmful side effects as early as 1999. 
While the plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and 
generated $4.2 billion in sales in 2005. More than a year later, 
information about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 
18,000 cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy 
agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and 
avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain, 
dangerously elevated blood sugar levels, and diabetes.
  There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders 
accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence 
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. 
Beyond Bridgestone/Firestone, General Motors, Toyota, Seroquel, BP, 
Cooper Tire, and Zyprexa, secrecy agreements have also had real life 
consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and 
numerous other dangerous products and drugs to remain in the market. 
And those are only the ones we know about.
  While some judges have already begun to move in the right direction 
by giving serious weight to public health and safety, we still have a 
long way to go. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal 
that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to 
ensure that in any proposed secrecy order in a case pleading facts 
relevant to public health and safety, the defendant's interest in 
secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to 
public health and safety.
  Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or 
sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized 
finding of

[[Page S1838]]

fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information 
relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both 
Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders 
that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.
  This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the 
board, and it does not place an undue burden on judges or on our 
courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure 
outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield 
important health and safety information from the public. Since last 
Congress, we have made changes to make absolutely clear that this would 
apply only to those cases with facts relevant to public health and 
safety, and to ensure that there is no undue burden on judges or our 
courts. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent 
future harm is now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 623

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sunshine in Litigation Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND SEALING OF 
                   CASES AND SETTLEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1660. Restrictions on protective orders and sealing of 
       cases and settlements

       ``(a)(1) In any civil action in which the pleadings state 
     facts that are relevant to the protection of public health or 
     safety, a court shall not enter, by stipulation or otherwise, 
     an order otherwise authorized under rule 26(c) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure restricting the disclosure of 
     information obtained through discovery, an order approving a 
     settlement agreement that would restrict the disclosure of 
     such information, or an order restricting access to court 
     records unless in connection with such order the court has 
     first made independent findings of fact that--
       ``(A) such order would not restrict the disclosure of 
     information which is relevant to the protection of public 
     health or safety; or
       ``(B)(i) the public interest in the disclosure of past, 
     present, or potential health or safety hazards is outweighed 
     by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the 
     confidentiality of the information or records in question; 
     and
       ``(ii) the requested order is no broader than necessary to 
     protect the confidentiality interest asserted.
       ``(2) No order entered as a result of the operation 
     paragraph (1), other than an order approving a settlement 
     agreement, may continue in effect after the entry of final 
     judgment, unless at the time of, or after, such entry the 
     court makes a separate finding of fact that the requirements 
     of paragraph (1) continue to be met.
       ``(3) The party who is the proponent for the entry of an 
     order, as provided under this section, shall have the burden 
     of proof in obtaining such an order.
       ``(4) This section shall apply even if an order under 
     paragraph (1) is requested--
       ``(A) by motion pursuant to rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure; or
       ``(B) by application pursuant to the stipulation of the 
     parties.
       ``(5)(A) The provisions of this section shall not 
     constitute grounds for the withholding of information in 
     discovery that is otherwise discoverable under rule 26 of the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(B) A court shall not approve any party's stipulation or 
     request to stipulate to an order that would violate this 
     section.
       ``(b)(1) In any civil action in which the pleadings state 
     facts that are relevant to the protection of public health or 
     safety, a court shall not approve or enforce any provision of 
     an agreement between or among parties, or approve or enforce 
     an order entered as a result of the operation of subsection 
     (a)(1), to the extent that such provision or such order 
     prohibits or otherwise restricts a party from disclosing any 
     information relevant to such civil action to any Federal or 
     State agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an 
     activity relating to such information.
       ``(2) Any such information disclosed to a Federal or State 
     agency shall be confidential to the extent provided by law.
       ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a court shall not 
     enforce any provision of a settlement agreement described 
     under subsection (a)(1) between or among parties that 
     prohibits 1 or more parties from--
       ``(A) disclosing the fact that such settlement was reached 
     or the terms of such settlement, other than the amount of 
     money paid; or
       ``(B) discussing a civil action, or evidence produced in 
     the civil action, that involves matters relevant to the 
     protection of public health or safety.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies unless the court has made 
     independent findings of fact that--
       ``(A) the public interest in the disclosure of past, 
     present, or potential public health or safety hazards is 
     outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in 
     maintaining the confidentiality of the information or records 
     in question; and
       ``(B) the requested order is no broader than necessary to 
     protect the confidentiality interest asserted.
       ``(d) When weighing the interest in maintaining 
     confidentiality under this section, there shall be a 
     rebuttable presumption that the interest in protecting 
     personally identifiable information relating to financial, 
     health or other similar information of an individual 
     outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
       ``(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit, 
     require, or authorize the disclosure of classified 
     information (as defined under section 1 of the Classified 
     Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.)).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 1659 the 
     following:

``1660. Restrictions on protective orders and sealing of cases and 
              settlements.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall--
       (1) take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (2) apply only to orders entered in civil actions or 
     agreements entered into on or after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Landrieu, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 626. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the shipping investment withdrawal rules in section 955 and to provide 
an incentive to reinvest foreign shipping earnings in the United 
States; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
Senators Vitter, Carper, Cochran, Inouye, Landrieu, and Murray to 
introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011. This 
legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen 
the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and 
stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.
  Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to 
U.S. national security and economic security. American companies own 
and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels 
under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies 
generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. 
seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding 
industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, 
but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military 
sealift in time of war or national emergency.
  Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we 
maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as 
well known is that the international ships of some American-owned 
companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled 
fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered 
in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or 
charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national 
emergency.
  For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews 
transported the majority of the cargo, more than 25 million measurement 
tons of cargo, in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 
Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.
  What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in 
decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax 
policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was 
a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping assets. 
To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either 
became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign 
assets.
  A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed 
by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that 
the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and 
nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. 
Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced 
in militarily-useful

[[Page S1839]]

vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that 
if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to 
support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.
  Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed 
it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs 
Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting 
an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability 
of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United 
States.
  We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support 
U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime 
industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed 
changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag 
vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with 
their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.
  Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 
1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, 
there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with 
foreign operations, and our legislation is directed at helping them 
sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC 
fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in 
the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance 
national security.
  Specifically, the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011 would 
repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. 
shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest 
it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.
  Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, 
which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. 
corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the 
United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign 
shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for 
deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying 
shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided 
that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, 
immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in 
qualified shipping investments.
  The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income 
the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign 
subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, 
generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for 
certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of 
shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 
955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a 
situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill 
would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be 
reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were 
in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the 
legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping 
companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at 
a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our 
domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our 
legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United 
States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.
  The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the 
funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the 
shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill 
contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a 
shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.
  This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by 
supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by 
enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy 
products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and 
ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.
  The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship 
owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime 
industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic 
footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long-
term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my 
colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 626

       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 ``American Shipping 
     Reinvestment Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF QUALIFIED SHIPPING INVESTMENT WITHDRAWAL 
                   RULES.

       (a) In General.--Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to withdrawal of previously excluded 
     subpart F income from qualified investment) is hereby 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 951(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (i) 
     and by striking clause (iii).
       (2) Section 951(a)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``, and'' at the end and inserting ``, except that 
     in applying this clause amounts invested in less developed 
     country corporations described in section 955(c)(2) (as so in 
     effect) shall not be treated as investments in less developed 
     countries.''.
       (3) Section 951(a)(3) of such Code (relating to the 
     limitation on pro rata share of previously excluded subpart F 
     income withdrawn from investment) is hereby repealed.
       (4) Section 964(b) of such Code is amended by striking ``, 
     955,''.
       (5) The table of sections for subpart F of part III of 
     subchapter N of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 955.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years of controlled foreign 
     corporations ending on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and to taxable years of United States shareholders 
     in which or with which such taxable years of controlled 
     foreign corporations end.

     SEC. 3. ONE-TIME TEMPORARY DIVIDENDS RECEIVED DEDUCTION FOR 
                   PREVIOUSLY UNTAXED FOREIGN BASE COMPANY 
                   SHIPPING INCOME.

       (a) In General.--In the case of a corporation which is a 
     United States shareholder and for which an election under 
     this section is made for the taxable year, for purposes of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, there shall be allowed as 
     a deduction in computing taxable income under section 63 of 
     such Code an amount equal to 85 percent of the cash 
     distributions which are received during such taxable year by 
     such shareholder from controlled foreign corporations to the 
     extent that the distributions are attributable to income--
       (1) which was derived by the controlled foreign corporation 
     in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, and
       (2) which would, without regard to the year earned, be 
     described in section 954(f) of such Code (as in effect before 
     the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004).
       (b) Indirect Dividends.--A rule similar to the rule of 
     section 965(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall 
     apply, determined by treating cash distributions which are so 
     attributable as cash dividends.
       (c) Limitation.--The amount of dividends taken into account 
     under this section shall not exceed the amount permitted to 
     be taken into account under paragraphs (1), (3) (determined 
     by substituting ``December 31, 2008'' for ``October 3, 
     2004''), and (4) of section 965(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, determined as if such paragraphs applied to 
     this section.
       (d) Taxpayer Election and Designation.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), a taxpayer may, on its return for the taxable 
     year to which this section applies--
       (1) elect to apply paragraph (3) of section 959(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 before paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     thereof, and
       (2) designate the extent, if any, to which a cash 
     distribution reduces a controlled foreign corporation's 
     earnings and profits attributable to--
       (A) foreign base company shipping income (determined under 
     section 954(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in 
     effect before the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act 
     of 2004), or
       (B) other earnings and profits.
       (e) Election.--
       (1) In general.--The taxpayer may elect to apply this 
     section to--
       (A) the taxpayer's last taxable year which begins before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, or
       (B) the taxpayer's first taxable year which begins during 
     the 1-year period beginning on such date.

[[Page S1840]]

       (2) Timing of election and one-time election.--Such 
     election may be made for a taxable year--
       (A) only if made on or before the due date (including 
     extensions) for filing the return of tax for such taxable 
     year, and
       (B) only if no election has been made under this section or 
     section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect 
     to the same distribution for any other taxable year of the 
     taxpayer.
       (f) Reduction in Benefits for Failure to Maintain 
     Employment Levels.--
       (1) In general.--If, during the period consisting of the 
     calendar month in which the taxpayer first receives a 
     distribution described in subsection (a) and the succeeding 
     23 calendar months, the taxpayer does not maintain an average 
     employment level at least equal to the taxpayer's prior 
     average employment, an additional amount equal to $25,000 
     multiplied by the number of employees by which the taxpayer's 
     average employment level during such period falls below the 
     prior average employment (but not exceeding the aggregate 
     amount allowed as a deduction pursuant to subsection (a)) 
     shall be taken into account as income by the taxpayer during 
     the taxable year that includes the final day of such period.
       (2) Prior average employment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the taxpayer's ``prior average employment'' shall 
     be the average number of full time equivalent employees of 
     the taxpayer during the period consisting of the 24 calendar 
     months immediately preceding the calendar month in which the 
     taxpayer first receives a distribution described in 
     subsection (a).
       (3) Aggregation rules.--In determining the taxpayer's 
     average employment level and prior average employment, all 
     domestic members of a controlled group (as defined in section 
     264(e)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be 
     treated as a single taxpayer.
       (g) Special Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (d) and (e) and paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of 
     subsection (c) of section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 shall apply for purposes of this section.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to taxable 
     years ending on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Tester):
  S. 627. A bill to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information 
Act Processing Delays; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine 
Week, a time to educate the public about the importance of open 
government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2011, I am pleased to join 
with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bill 
to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.
  Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address 
the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal 
agencies. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously 
passed it last year. This bill is the most recent product of our 
bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.
  This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root 
causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the 
President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs.
  While the Obama administration has made significant progress in 
improving the FOIA process, large backlogs remain a major roadblock to 
public access to information. A report released earlier this week by 
the National Security Archive found that only about half of the Federal 
agencies surveyed have taken concrete steps to update their FOIA 
policies in light of these reforms. In addition, twelve of the agencies 
surveyed by the National Security Archive had pending FOIA requests 
that were more than 6 years old, according to the report.
  Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply 
unacceptable. And that is why we are introducing this bill.
  The commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key 
recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments 
to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also 
study why Federal agencies are more and more relying on FOIA exemptions 
to withhold information from the public. In addition, the commission 
will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting 
fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The commission will be made 
up of government and non-governmental representatives with a broad 
range of experience related to handling FOIA requests.
  Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the 
currency of democracy.'' I share this view. Indeed, we need look no 
further than the unfolding and historic events in the Middle East and 
North Africa for evidence of the truth of these words. The Faster FOIA 
Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the 
American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free.
  I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic 
issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue 
that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this 
bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in 
celebrating an open and transparent government. I thank Senator Cornyn 
for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also 
thank Senator Whitehouse who has cosponsored this bill. I urge all 
Senators to support the Faster FOIA Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 628. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey a 
railroad right of way between North Pole, Alaska, and Delta Junction, 
Alaska, to the Alaska Railroad Corporation; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that really has been 97 years in the making, legislation to authorize 
the land conveyances needed to permit the Alaska Railroad to be 
extended another 80 miles southeastward.
  On March 12, 1914, Congress originally approved the Alaska Railroad 
Organic Act that authorized the construction of up to 1,000 miles of 
mainline track in Alaska, an effort to tie coastal Alaska with the 
Interior of my State. During the past century 470 miles of mainline 
track has been built tying Seward, Whittier and Anchorage located on 
either Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet with Fairbanks and Eielson 
Air Force base that is located just south of Fairbanks in the Interior 
of Alaska. Since 1923 when the current mainline track was finished 
being installed, there has been a dream by many to extend the railroad 
further, perhaps all the way to the Canadian border 270 miles away so 
the railroad could eventually be tied into North America's trans-
continental rail network.
  Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, I 
introduce legislation to only authorize the land conveyances from the 
Federal Government to permit the railroad to reach Delta Junction, 
Alaska.
  The reasons for the extension are many.
  One reason is that the Department of Defense has large military 
training areas south of the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Delta 
Junction--some of the best areas for joint Army and Air Force training 
in the nation. Access to the Joint Pacific Area Range Complex, JPARC, 
is currently limited to ice roads in winter, but a railroad extension 
would permit vehicles to travel by low-cost rail to a staging area for 
joint military exercises that could be built immediately south of the 
river, reducing the time and cost of military exercises and permitting 
year-round training to occur more readily.
  Delta Junction, the home of Ft. Greely, is also the site of an anti-
missile defense installation that could also benefit from access to 
rail transportation.
  Rail service to the area also would permit existing agricultural, 
mining and petrochemical industries to obtain supplies, reducing wear 
and tear on the Richardson Highway, currently the only means of access 
to the region. It would improve the economics for several mining 
deposits located along the 80-mile rail extension right of way, and 
should the railroad ever be extended further toward the border, it 
would open more than a dozen other known mineralized areas to potential 
economic development. A railroad would provide safer all-weather 
transportation than highways given Alaska's severe winter weather 
driving conditions.
  Planning for such a rail extension has been underway for a number of 
years. In January 2010 the Surface Transportation Board approved the 
Environmental Impact Statement for the

[[Page S1841]]

rail extension. That means that a route already has been identified. 
This means that the estimate that this extension will require only 
roughly 950 acres of land to be purchased/conveyed to the railroad is a 
firm requirement based on an approved rail route and corridor.
  The bill I introduce requires the railroad to pay the full appraised 
value for the land--an appraisal performed by an appraiser mutually 
acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the railroad--unless 
the government accepts railroad replacement property in lieu of cash 
payment. It requires the railroad to pay all surveying costs of the 
land transfer--surveying the largest likely cost of any land conveyance 
by the Federal Government. The bill models the transfer on the 1982 
legislation that conveyed the railroad from Federal ownership to the 
State-based Alaska Railroad Corp., since there are now nearly 30 years 
of precedent and practice that should make the land conveyance issues 
involved in a rail extension clearer and easier to resolve.
  This bill since it allows the secretary only to clear a right of way 
corridor does not impact the lone controversy that I am aware of 
involving the extension. That is the exact location of a bridge needed 
for the rail line to cross the Tanana River near Salcha. It is 
certainly my hope that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers early this 
spring will follow the route approved in January 2010 and locate the 
bridge near Salcha, where it was cleared to go by the Surface 
Transportation Board after a four-year environmental review of the 
project. But whether the Corps approves the route, or whether EPA 
presses its concerns about the bridge, the bill will still be needed to 
authorize the right-of-way corridor over whatever final route wins 
approval.
  For a host of reasons, it makes sense for the Alaska Railroad to be 
permitted to advance this extension, the first major extension of the 
railroad's track bed in Alaska since lines were run to Whittier during 
World War II in 1943. My hope is that this bill will receive a 
thoughtful review by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
and be approved by Congress during the 112th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Risch, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 629. A bill to improve hydropower, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three pieces 
of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest 
working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean 
energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce 
today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, cosponsored by my 
colleagues Senators Bingaman, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Wyden, Murray, 
Begich, and Whitehouse, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower 
Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase the capacity 
and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will 
improve environmental quality and support local job creation and 
economic investment across the Nation.
  There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, 
part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable 
electricity in the United States. The 100,000 megawatts of 
hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of 
the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon-
free baseload power that allows us to avoid approximately 200 million 
metric ton of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, 
efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am 
constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource.
  Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's 
hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If 
anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something 
we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already 
supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 
promising sites for further hydropower development have been 
identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower 
development in every state, not just Alaska.
  According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower 
facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts 
of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that 
doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the 
country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant 
amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts--
can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity 
additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured 
in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects 
can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are 
intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid.
  The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially 
increase our Nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean 
power generation and create domestic jobs. The legislation establishes 
a competitive grants program and directs the Energy Department to 
produce and implement a plan for the research, development and 
demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend 
preliminary permit terms; to work with federal resource agencies and 
stakeholders to make the review process for conduit and small 
hydropower projects more efficient; and to explore a possible two-year 
licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and 
closed loop pumped storage projects. The act also calls for studies on 
the resource development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities and in 
conduit projects, as well as on suitable pumped storage locations. 
Importantly, by utilizing existing authorizations, the bill does not 
represent new funding.
  It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term 
energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the 
renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to 
our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National 
Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the 
Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water 
Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 to promote the further development 
of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 630. A bill to promote marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy 
research and development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is 
designed to speed up the development of renewable ocean energy--wave, 
current and tidal energy--across the nation and also in my home State 
of Alaska. The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is 
cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.
  Since 2004 I have had a strong interest in working to promote the 
research and development of marine hydrokinetic energy--the effort to 
produce electricity from waves, current and tidal energy--all of which 
is indirectly driven by the sun. With 70 percent of our planet covered 
with water, marine hydrokinetic energy has the potential to be a major 
source of the world's clean, non-carbon emitting power in the future.
  The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated that our Nation's 
ocean resources could generate 252 million megawatt hours of 
electricity--63 percent of our entire electricity generation--if ocean 
energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently 
enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.
  In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we started the process of leveling the 
playing field. In that bill, Congress authorized Federal research and 
included ocean energy in both the federal renewable energy purchase 
requirements and the federal production incentives. In the 2007 Energy 
Independence and Security Act, we authorized ocean energy research and 
demonstration centers. In 2008, we finally qualified ocean energy

[[Page S1842]]

to receive a renewable energy Production Tax Credit, although 
unfortunately at a lower rate than some other renewable energy 
resources receive.
  The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, along with a 
related tax measure that I will discuss next, seeks to increase the 
industry's growth through additional federal aid. Specifically, the 
bill authorizes the Department of Energy to expand its research and 
development efforts on marine hydrokinetic energy via advanced 
engineering and integration systems. It further authorizes the 
Department to transfer environmental data throughout the industry in 
order to expedite environmental assessments and demonstration project 
approvals. The legislation calls for the creation of three testing 
facilities to be developed by states, universities, or non-profit 
entities to test marine hydrokinetic technology.
  Importantly, the legislation directs the development of a Federal 
Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program. Through this program, 
the government will be able to certify the performance of new marine 
technologies in order to reduce market risks for utilities purchasing 
power from new devices. The bill also authorizes the Federal government 
to set up an adaptive management program and a fund to help pay for the 
regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies. This 
program should help demonstration projects to win permitting approvals.
  This bill further amends Section 803 from the Energy Independence and 
Security Act. This was a provision I had authored in that 2007 energy 
bill to create a renewable energy deployment grants program for all 
forms of renewable energy. That program has never been funded because 
it has been inaccurately perceived as an Alaska-only program. The 
amendments make clear that the renewable energy grants program is 
national in scope and is available to assist projects in high-cost 
areas, where power costs exceed 125 percent of the national average.
  The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is very 
similar to marine and hydrokinetic provisions that won the approval of 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress and 
were included in S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. 
This bill, however, is far less expensive, authorizing up to $225 
million in aid over 3 years to jump start marine hydrokinetic power--
substantially less than the $3.25 billion authorized by the original 
legislation. Moreover, the spending authorized in this legislation is 
offset via the reprogramming of previously un-utilized Congressional 
authorizations.
  Coming from Alaska where there are more than 80 large communities 
located along the State's 34,000 miles of coastline and major river 
systems, it is clear that perfecting marine energy could be of immense 
benefit to the Nation. It simply makes good sense to harness the power 
of the sun, wind, waves, and river and ocean currents to make 
electricity. When the fuel is free, it's obviously economic to harness 
its power.
  This legislation is designed to aid development nationally, but also 
in Alaska where several companies already have proposed test projects 
in the Yukon and Tanana Rivers and in Cook Inlet, along with Kachemak 
Bay and Inside Passage waters. Projects are under consideration at 
Eagle, Galena, Ruby, Tanana, in addition to near Anchorage, with others 
being considered near Homer and in Southeast.
  This bill would allow the marine industry to be on a level playing 
field with other renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal power, 
all of which have received large budget increases in the President's 
fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. It would truly help the industry 
prove whether the technology can achieve the technical success and the 
economies of scale needed for it to become a major component of the 
nation's energy mix. I hope that Congress will give real consideration 
to the Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, as well as 
the other bills that I am introducing today to aid hydroelectric 
development throughout the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 631. A bill to extend certain Federal benefits and income tax 
provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hydropower 
Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011, legislation to extend certain 
benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower 
resources. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Begich.
  We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State 
of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range 
of sizes from the 126 megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7 kilowatt 
Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's 
electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not 
tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional 
hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under 
construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 
areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run 
of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With 
the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction 
companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That 
is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every 
State to further develop this clean energy alternative.
  Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no 
carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able 
to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important 
classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable 
Energy Development Act of 2011 directs that the generation of 
hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes 
of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of 
hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production 
of this important and often undervalued resource.
  Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in 
the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate 
wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass systems are eligible 
for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit 
for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. 
Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation 
at non-powered facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value 
tax credit of 1.1 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy 
Development Act of 2011 eliminates the distinction between the two 
categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full 
PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower 
resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, 
small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage 
facilities to qualify as well.
  The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 also carries 
this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy 
Bonds, CREBS, program.
  Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power 
providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, 
CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable 
energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and 
has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless 
possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric 
cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the 
proper financial incentive to do so.
  Finally, the bill provides for a 5-year accelerated depreciation 
period for equipment which produces electricity from marine and 
hydrokinetic energy, as well as conventional hydropower resources.
  I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The 
further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us 
meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, 
baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of 
hydropower capacity throughout the nation will lead to hundreds of 
thousands of good paying, domestic jobs.

[[Page S1843]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Brown of 
        Massachusetts, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 633. A bill to prevent fraud in small business contracting, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation along with Senators Landrieu, Merkley, Brown of 
Massachusetts, and Enzi, titled the Small Business Contracting Fraud 
Prevention Act of 2011.
  In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has 
identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's 
contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, 
the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the 
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our 
legislation attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms 
siphoning away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete 
within the SBA's contracting programs.
  As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous 
oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a 
letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO 
reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the Agency's contracting 
programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our Committee's first 
priority this Congress is ensuring that ALL of the SBA's contracting 
programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of 
exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an 
effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing 
fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace.
  As recently as Saturday March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an 
ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``DC insiders can 
reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This 
article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for 
compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in 
contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying 
the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other 
agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the 
SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing, 
the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA.
  This legislation contains recommendations both from the SBA Inspector 
General and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses 
vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business 
program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the 
bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of 
suspensions and debarments more transparent.
  In order to effectively execute the small business contracting 
programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective 
certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust 
enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims 
to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments 
for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent 
means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually 
detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases 
referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions.
  To that end, the SBIR bill we are now debating on the Senate floor, 
includes stringent oversight and fraud prevention measures, requiring 
Inspectors General of participating Federal agencies to establish fraud 
detection measures, coordinate fraud-related information sharing 
between agencies, and provide fraud prevention related education and 
training to agencies administering the programs, among other 
initiatives.
  As a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with 
the Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, in developing this language 
following a 2009 committee investigation and hearing on the subject of 
fraud in the SBIR program. My amendment goes even further and provides 
the SBA more stringent oversight capacity across all the SBA 
contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize every fraud 
prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts the tools in 
place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the SBA 
contracting programs.
  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. 633

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Contracting 
     Fraud Prevention Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``8(a) program'' means the program under 
     section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a));
       (2) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (3) the terms ``HUBZone'' and ``HUBZone small business 
     concern'' and ``HUBZone map'' have the meanings given those 
     terms in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p)), as amended by this Act; and
       (4) the term ``recertification'' means a determination by 
     the Administrator that a business concern that was previously 
     determined to be a qualified HUBZone small business concern 
     is a qualified HUBZone small business concern under section 
     3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)).

     SEC. 3. FRAUD DETERRENCE AT THE SMALL BUSINESS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 16 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 645) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Whoever'' and all that follows through ``oneself or 
     another'' and inserting the following: ``A person shall be 
     subject to the penalties and remedies described in paragraph 
     (2) if the person misrepresents the status of any concern or 
     person as a small business concern, a qualified HUBZone small 
     business concern, a small business concern owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, a small business concern owned and controlled by 
     women, or a small business concern owned and controlled by 
     service-disabled veterans, in order to obtain for any 
     person'';
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) prime contract, subcontract, grant, or cooperative 
     agreement to be awarded under subsection (a) or (m) of 
     section 8, or section 9, 15, 31, or 36;'';
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
       (v) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``, shall be'' and all that follows and inserting a period;
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) be subject to the civil remedies under subchapter III 
     of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act');''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) In the case of a violation of paragraph (1)(A), 
     (g), or (h), for purposes of a proceeding described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (2), the amount of the 
     loss to the Federal Government or the damages sustained by 
     the Federal Government, as applicable, shall be an amount 
     equal to the amount that the Federal Government paid to the 
     person that received a contract, grant, or cooperative 
     agreement described in paragraph (1)(A), (g), or (h), 
     respectively.
       ``(B) In the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of paragraph (1), for the purpose of a proceeding described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (2), the amount of 
     the loss to the Federal Government or the damages sustained 
     by the Federal Government, as applicable, shall be an amount 
     equal to the portion of any payment by the Federal Government 
     under a prime contract that was used for a subcontract 
     described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), 
     respectively.
       ``(C) In a proceeding described in subparagraph (A) or (B), 
     no credit shall be applied against any loss or damages to the 
     Federal Government for the fair market value of the property 
     or services provided to the Federal Government.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Any representation of the status of any concern or 
     person as a small business concern, a HUBZone small business 
     concern, a small business concern owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, a small 
     business concern owned and controlled by women, or a small 
     business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled 
     veterans, in order to obtain any prime contract, subcontract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement described in subsection 
     (d)(1) shall be made in writing or

[[Page S1844]]

     through the Online Representations and Certifications 
     Application process required under section 4.1201 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, or any successor thereto.''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) A person shall be subject to the penalties and 
     remedies described in subsection (d)(2) if the person 
     misrepresents the status of any concern or person as a small 
     business concern, a qualified HUBZone small business concern, 
     a small business concern owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, a small business 
     concern owned and controlled by women, or a small business 
     concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans--
       ``(1) in order to allow any person to participate in any 
     program of the Administration; or
       ``(2) in relation to a protest of a contract award or 
     proposed contract award made under regulations issued by the 
     Administration.
       ``(h)(1) A person that submits a request for payment on a 
     contract or subcontract that is awarded under subsection (a) 
     or (m) of section 8, or section 9, 15, 31, or 36, shall be 
     deemed to have submitted a certification that the person 
     complied with regulations issued by the Administration 
     governing the percentage of work that the person is required 
     to perform on the contract or subcontract, unless the person 
     states, in writing, that the person did not comply with the 
     regulations.
       ``(2) A person shall be subject to the penalties and 
     remedies described in subsection (d)(2) if the person--
       ``(A) uses the services of a business other than the 
     business awarded the contract or subcontract to perform a 
     greater percentage of work under a contract than is permitted 
     by regulations issued by the Administration; or
       ``(B) willfully participates in a scheme to circumvent 
     regulations issued by the Administration governing the 
     percentage of work that a contractor is required to perform 
     on a contract.''.

     SEC. 4. VETERANS INTEGRITY IN CONTRACTING.

       (a) Definition.--Section 3(q)(1) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(q)(1)) is amended by striking ``means a 
     veteran'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``means--
       ``(A) a veteran with a service-connected disability rated 
     by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as zero percent or more 
     disabling; or
       ``(B) a former member of the Armed Forces who is retired, 
     separated, or placed on the temporary disability retired list 
     for physical disability under chapter 61 of title 10, United 
     States Code.''.
       (b) Veterans Contracting.--Section 4 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 633) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Veteran Status.--
       ``(1) In general.--A business concern seeking status as a 
     small business concern owned and controlled by service-
     disabled veterans shall--
       ``(A) submit an annual certification indicating that the 
     business concern is a small business concern owned and 
     controlled by service-disabled veterans by means of the 
     Online Representations and Certifications Application process 
     required under section 4.1201 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation, or any successor thereto; and
       ``(B) register with--
       ``(i) the Central Contractor Registration database 
     maintained under subpart 4.11 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation, or any successor thereto; and
       ``(ii) the VetBiz database of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, or any successor thereto.
       ``(2) Verification of status.--
       ``(A) Veterans affairs.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall determine whether a business concern registered with 
     the VetBiz database of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or 
     any successor thereto, as a small business concern owned and 
     controlled by veterans or a small business concern owned and 
     controlled by service-disabled veterans is owned and 
     controlled by a veteran or a service-disabled veteran, as the 
     case may be.
       ``(B) Federal agencies generally.--The head of each Federal 
     agency shall--
       ``(i) for a sole source contract awarded to a small 
     business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled 
     veterans or a contract awarded with competition restricted to 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by service-
     disabled veterans under section 36, determine whether a 
     business concern submitting a proposal for the contract is a 
     small business concern owned and controlled by service-
     disabled veterans; and
       ``(ii) use the VetBiz database of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, or any successor thereto, in determining 
     whether a business concern is a small business concern owned 
     and controlled by service-disabled veterans.
       ``(3) Debarment and suspension.--If the Administrator 
     determines that a business concern knowingly and willfully 
     misrepresented that the business concern is a small business 
     concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, 
     the Administrator may debar or suspend the business concern 
     from contracting with the United States.''.
       (c) Integration of Databases.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator for 
     Federal Procurement Policy and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall ensure that data is shared on an ongoing basis 
     between the VetBiz database of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs and the Central Contractor Registration database 
     maintained under subpart 4.11 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.

     SEC. 5. SECTION 8(A) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Review of Effectiveness.--Section 8(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(22) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       ``(A) conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the 
     program under this subsection, including an examination of--
       ``(i) the number and size of contracts applied for, as 
     compared to the number received by, small business concerns 
     after successfully completing the program;
       ``(ii) the percentage of small business concerns that 
     continue to operate during the 3-year period beginning on the 
     date on which the small business concerns successfully 
     complete the program;
       ``(iii) whether the business of small business concerns 
     increases during the 3-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the small business concerns successfully complete the 
     program; and
       ``(iv) the number of training sessions offered under the 
     program; and
       ``(B) submit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report regarding 
     each evaluation under subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Other Improvements.--In order to improve the 8(a) 
     program, the Administrator shall--
       (1) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, begin to--
       (A) evaluate the feasibility of--
       (i) using additional third-party data sources;
       (ii) making unannounced visits of sites that are selected 
     randomly or using risk-based criteria;
       (iii) using fraud detection tools, including data-mining 
     techniques; and
       (iv) conducting financial and analytical training for the 
     business opportunity specialists of the Administration;
       (B) evaluate the feasibility and advisability of amending 
     regulations applicable the 8(a) program to require that 
     calculations of the adjusted net worth or total assets of an 
     individual include assets held by the spouse of the 
     individual; and
       (C) develop a more consistent enforcement strategy that 
     includes the suspension or debarment of contractors that 
     knowingly make misrepresentations in order to qualify for the 
     8(a) program; and
       (2) not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
     Comptroller General submits the report under section 
     8(a)(22)(B) of the Small Business Act, as added by subsection 
     (c), issue, in final form, proposed regulations of the 
     Administration that--
       (A) determine the economic disadvantage of a participant in 
     the 8(a) program based on the income and asset levels of the 
     participant at the time of application and annual 
     recertification for the 8(a) program; and
       (B) limit the ability of a small business concern to 
     participate in the 8(a) program if an immediate family member 
     of an owner of the small business concern is, or has been, a 
     participant in the 8(a) program, in the same industry.

     SEC. 6. HUBZONE IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to reform and 
     improve the HUBZone program of the Administration.
       (b) In General.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) ensure the HUBZone map is--
       (A) accurate and up-to-date; and
       (B) revised as new data is made available to maintain the 
     accuracy and currency of the HUBZone map;
       (2) implement policies for ensuring that only HUBZone small 
     business concerns determined to be qualified under section 
     3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)) are 
     participating in the HUBZone program, including through the 
     appropriate use of technology to control costs and maximize, 
     among other benefits, uniformity, completeness, simplicity, 
     and efficiency;
       (3) submit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report regarding 
     any application to be designated as a HUBZone small business 
     concern or for recertification for which the Administrator 
     has not made a determination as of the date that is 60 days 
     after the date on which the application was submitted or 
     initiated, which shall include a plan and timetable for 
     ensuring the timely processing of the applications; and
       (4) develop measures and implement plans to assess the 
     effectiveness of the HUBZone program that--
       (A) require the identification of a baseline point in time 
     to allow the assessment of economic development under the 
     HUBZone program, including creating additional jobs; and
       (B) take into account--
       (i) the economic characteristics of the HUBZone; and
       (ii) contracts being counted under multiple socioeconomic 
     subcategories.
       (c) Employment Percentage.--Section 3(p) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Employment percentage during interim period.--

[[Page S1845]]

       ``(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term `interim 
     period' means the period beginning on the date on which the 
     Administrator determines that a HUBZone small business 
     concern is qualified under subparagraph (A) and ending on the 
     day before the date on which a contract under the HUBZone 
     program for which the HUBZone small business concern submits 
     a bid is awarded.
       ``(ii) Interim period.--During the interim period, the 
     Administrator may not determine that the HUBZone small 
     business is not qualified under subparagraph (A) based on a 
     failure to meet the applicable employment percentage under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)(I), unless the HUBZone small business 
     concern--

       ``(I) has not attempted to maintain the applicable 
     employment percentage under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); or
       ``(II) does not meet the applicable employment percentage--

       ``(aa) on the date on which the HUBZone small business 
     concern submits a bid for a contract under the HUBZone 
     program; or
       ``(bb) on the date on which the HUBZone small business 
     concern is awarded a contract under the HUBZone program.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Hubzone program.--The term `HUBZone program' means 
     the program established under section 31.
       ``(9) Hubzone map.--The term `HUBZone map' means the map 
     used by the Administration to identify HUBZones.''.
       (d) Redesignated Areas.--Section 3(p)(4)(C)(i) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(C)(i)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(i) 3 years after the first date on which the 
     Administrator publishes a HUBZone map that is based on the 
     results from the 2010 decennial census; or''.

     SEC. 7. ANNUAL REPORT ON SUSPENSION, DEBARMENT, AND 
                   PROSECUTION.

       The Administrator shall submit an annual report to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives that contains--
       (1) the number of debarments from participation in programs 
     of the Administration issued by the Administrator during the 
     1-year period preceding the date of the report, including--
       (A) the number of debarments that were based on a 
     conviction; and
       (B) the number of debarments that were fact-based and did 
     not involve a conviction;
       (2) the number of suspensions from participation in 
     programs of the Administration issued by the Administrator 
     during the 1-year period preceding the date of the report, 
     including--
       (A) the number of suspensions issued that were based upon 
     indictments; and
       (B) the number of suspensions issued that were fact-based 
     and did not involve an indictment;
       (3) the number of suspension and debarments issued by the 
     Administrator during the 1-year period preceding the date of 
     the report that were based upon referrals from offices of the 
     Administration, other than the Office of Inspector General;
       (4) the number of suspension and debarments issued by the 
     Administrator during the 1-year period preceding the date of 
     the report based upon referrals from the Office of Inspector 
     General; and
       (5) the number of persons that the Administrator declined 
     to debar or suspend after a referral described in paragraph 
     (8), and the reason for each such decision.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 637. A bill to establish a program to provide guarantees for debt 
issued by or on behalf of State catastrophe insurance programs to 
assist in the financial recovery from earthquakes, earthquake-induced 
landslides, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important 
changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic 
insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone 
Sstates.
  The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was 
a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are 
keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of 
people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are 
the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most 
sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did 
little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude.
  The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar 
risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent 
chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the 
next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a 
magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in 
the next 30 years.
  The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and 
FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though 
that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, 
Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result 
in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion.
  The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be 
prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be 
able to respond and recover quickly.
  That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability 
Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance 
programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in 
the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical 
in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely 
be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the 
large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery.
  This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury 
must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to 
repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation 
ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the 
federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my 
bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer.
  But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it 
will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake 
insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly 
rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake.
  This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance 
policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most 
homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by 
earthquakes.
  As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either 
having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their 
homes uninsured against these risks.
  In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and 
the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that 
offer this coverage at affordable rates.
  At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers 
flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private 
insurance is unavailable or too expensive.
  Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and 
other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic 
disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was 
set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make 
earthquake insurance more affordable.
  Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The 
California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who 
purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners 
in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent 
of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits.
  The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain 
too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home 
and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and 
that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such 
high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before 
they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal.
  The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is 
forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. 
This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will 
still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the 
CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business 
practices.
  However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 
billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in 
claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good 
investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other 
state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the

[[Page S1846]]

need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of 
their products.
  The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, 
allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access 
sufficient capital following a disaster.
  Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The 
California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and 
financially stable.
  This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the 
rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur 
when the next major disaster strikes.
  Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a 
billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to 
consumers.
  The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent 
or deductibles by 50 percent.
  This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners 
purchasing earthquake insurance.
  Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of 
dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess.
  Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion.
  The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion.
  Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion.
  By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing 
the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery 
to the Federal Government could be substantially lower.
  This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have 
insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake 
insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may 
have to support when disaster strikes.
  The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are 
not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake 
preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to 
protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new 
buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal 
Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness.
  The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to 
help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without 
burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt 
this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for 
tragedy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 638. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens 
charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Kyl and I are 
introducing two bills that will assist with alleviating the costs of 
illegal immigration for State and local governments--the SCAAP 
Reauthorization Act and the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011.
  We are joined by Senators McCain, Schumer, Boxer, and Hutchison. 
  Immigration is a federal responsibility, as is securing the Nation's 
borders. When the Federal Government fails to prevent illegal 
immigration, as it has for some time now, it needs to take 
responsibility for the consequences of this failure.
  However, the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes 
in our country has fallen largely to the States, and it weighs heavily 
on them, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. Last 
year, the State of California spent an estimated $1 billion to 
incarcerate criminal aliens.
  Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress 
enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, in 1994 as 
part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help 
reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating 
criminal aliens, and was last reauthorized in 2006 as part of a 
Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. The SCAAP Reauthorization 
bill that I am introducing today will reauthorize the program for an 
additional four years, until fiscal year 2015.
  The second bill that we are introducing today is necessary to fix a 
switch in interpretation by the Justice Department.
  Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP 
statute to include reimbursement to States and localities for 
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or 
convicted of State and local offenses, and have been incarcerated for a 
minimum of 72 hours. However, in 2003, DOJ changed its interpretation, 
and began limiting reimbursement to the amount States and localities 
spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 
consecutive days.
  Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal 
alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days 
significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities 
should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The 
actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are 
charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of 
time.
  This narrow interpretation by the Justice Department is even more 
devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request for SCAAP represents a 59 percent 
reduction below the fiscal year 2010 level and is far short of meeting 
the actual reimbursement costs of most States. As a result, SCAAP only 
reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal 
aliens. In 2009, Los Angeles County alone spent $116.6 million to house 
undocumented felons and received only $15.4 million in reimbursement 
payments.
  The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 will fix this problem 
by making it clear that States can be reimbursed for the full costs of 
incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a 
felony or two misdemeanors.
  When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and local 
governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at 
the expense of local services and law enforcement. American communities 
simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration 
policies.
  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. 638

       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 ``SCAAP Reimbursement 
     Protection Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED 
                   ALIENS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

       Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged 
     with or'' before ``convicted''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 639. A bill to authorize to be appropriated $950,000,000 for each 
of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. 639

       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 ``SCAAP Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 
                   STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Subparagraph (C) of section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is amended by 
     striking ``2011.'' and inserting ``2015.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Carper):
  S. 640. A bill to underscore the importance of international nuclear 
safety

[[Page S1847]]

cooperation for operating power reactors, encouraging the efforts of 
the Convention on Nuclear Safety, supporting progress in improving 
nuclear safety, and enhancing the pubic availability of nuclear safety 
information; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Furthering 
International Nuclear Safety Act of 2011 to enhance the implementation 
of the Convention on Nuclear Safety by taking a more systematic 
approach to improving civilian nuclear power safety. This legislation 
is cosponsored by Senator Carper, and Representative Fortenberry is 
introducing a House companion bill.
  The still unfolding nuclear emergency in Japan serves as a powerful 
reminder that the United States as a Nation, and as an influential 
member of the international community, must continually seek methods to 
enhance the safety posture of nuclear facilities worldwide.
  This year, April 26 will provide us with another sobering reminder: 
the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. The 
Chernobyl disaster was the worst nuclear power accident in history and 
made clear the need for international nuclear safety norms. According 
to a report commissioned by United Nations agencies, millions of people 
were exposed to high doses of radiation, and approximately 350,000 
people were displaced from their homes. The countries most directly 
affected by the disaster suffered estimated economic damages on the 
order of hundreds of billions of dollars, while thousands of square 
miles of agricultural and forest lands were removed from service.
  In the aftermath of this accident, over 50 countries, led by the 
United States, worked together to develop the Convention on Nuclear 
Safety. This convention was formally established in 1994, and the 
United States joined in 1999. Through the cooperative nature of the 
convention, which relies on peer-reviewed national reports and the 
sharing of best practices, countries that are party to the treaty work 
to improve their nuclear safety.
  Although civilian nuclear power programs have become safer since 
Chernobyl, the unfolding disaster in Japan makes clear that we must not 
become complacent. In future months, Japan and the international 
community will assess the damage and how to prevent its recurrence. 
This bill will provide a stronger framework for United States 
engagement in that process.
  Currently, there are nearly 450 civilian nuclear power reactors 
operating in 31 countries around the world, and at least 65 more are 
under construction. Countries such as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, 
Thailand, and Vietnam have started or expressed interest in civilian 
nuclear power programs. The global expansion of nuclear power should be 
accompanied by greater attention to nuclear safety.
  Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, completed a 
review of the Convention on Nuclear Safety in which GAO obtained the 
views of 40 parties to the Convention while carefully protecting 
individual respondent information. GAO found that the Convention has 
been very successful in improving nuclear safety but made 
recommendations to the United States Government that would enhance the 
Convention's effectiveness.
  The bill I am introducing today will implement GAO's recommendations 
and additional steps to improve nuclear safety worldwide. This bill 
urges the United States delegate to the Convention to take certain 
actions to enhance international nuclear safety. This includes the 
United States advocating that parties to the Convention more 
systematically assess their own progress through the broader use of 
performance metrics. Additionally, to increase access to information 
about nuclear safety, the delegate to the Convention will encourage 
parties to post their annual reports and answers to questions from 
other parties on the International Atomic Energy Agency's, IAEA, public 
website. IAEA will be encouraged to offer additional support, such as 
providing additional technical support; assistance as needed for 
parties' national reports; and support for Convention meetings, 
including language translation services. Further, the United States 
delegate will encourage all countries that have or are considering 
establishing a civilian nuclear power program to join the Convention. 
Finally, this bill calls for the Secretary of State to lead the 
development of a United States Government strategic plan for 
international nuclear safety cooperation for operating nuclear power 
reactors and to report on progress made in implementing this bill.
  International nuclear safety deserves our Nation's ongoing attention. 
As we continue to support Japan's efforts to prevent further 
deterioration at the damaged nuclear facilities, and as we approach the 
25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, we should be mindful that 
the use and expansion of nuclear power needs to be combined with 
supreme vigilance and concern for safety.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 640

       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 ``Furthering International 
     Nuclear Safety Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To recognize the paramount importance of international 
     nuclear safety cooperation for operating power reactors.
       (2) To further the efforts of the Convention on Nuclear 
     Safety as a vital international forum on nuclear safety.
       (3) To support progress in improving nuclear safety for 
     countries that currently have or are considering the 
     development of a civilian nuclear power program.
       (4) To enhance the public availability of nuclear safety 
     information.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate;
       (C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (E) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (F) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Convention.--The term ``Convention'' means the 
     Convention on Nuclear Safety, done at Vienna September 20, 
     1994, and ratified by the United States April 11, 1999.
       (3) Meeting.--The term ``meeting'' means a meeting as 
     described under Article 20, 21, or 23 of the Convention.
       (4) National report.--The term ``national report'' means a 
     report as described under Article 5 of the Convention.
       (5) Party.--The term ``party'' means a nation that has 
     formally joined the Convention through ratification or other 
     means.
       (6) Summary report.--The term ``summary report'' means a 
     report as described under Article 25 of the Convention.

     SEC. 4. UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO FURTHER INTERNATIONAL 
                   NUCLEAR SAFETY.

       The President shall instruct the United States official 
     serving as the delegate to the meetings of the Convention on 
     Nuclear Safety pursuant to Article 24 of the Convention to 
     use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, 
     while recognizing that these efforts by parties are 
     voluntary, to encourage, where appropriate--
       (1) parties to more systematically assess where and how 
     they have made progress in improving safety, including where 
     applicable through the incorporation of performance metric 
     tools;
       (2) parties to increase the number of national reports they 
     make available to the public by posting them to a publicly 
     available Internet Web site of the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency (IAEA);
       (3) parties to expand public dissemination of written 
     answers to questions raised by other parties about national 
     reports by posting the information to a publicly available 
     Internet Web site of the IAEA;
       (4) the IAEA to further its support of the Convention, upon 
     request by a party and where funding is available, by--
       (A) providing assistance to parties preparing national 
     reports;
       (B) providing additional assistance to help prepare for and 
     support meetings, including language translation services; 
     and
       (C) providing additional technical support to improve the 
     safety of civilian nuclear power programs; and
       (5) all countries that currently have or are considering 
     the establishment of a civilian nuclear power program to 
     formally join the Convention.

[[Page S1848]]

     SEC. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the 
     heads of other relevant United States Government agencies, 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the 
     United States Government's strategic plan and prioritized 
     goals for international nuclear safety cooperation for 
     operating power reactors.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       (a) Report on Implementation of Strategic Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the issuance 
     of each of the first two summary reports of the Convention 
     issued after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State, in cooperation with the heads of other 
     relevant United States Government agencies, shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report that--
       (A) describes the status of implementing the strategic plan 
     and achieving the goals set forth in section 5; and
       (B) enumerates the most significant concerns of the United 
     States Government regarding worldwide nuclear safety and 
     describes the extent to which the strategic plan addresses 
     these concerns.
       (2) Form.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified 
     annex.
       (b) Report on United States Efforts to Further 
     International Nuclear Safety.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the issuance of each of the first two summary reports of the 
     Convention issued after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the United States official serving as the delegate to 
     the meetings of the Convention shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report providing the 
     status of achieving the actions set forth in section 4.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mr. Reid, Mr. Roberts, 
        Mr. Cardin, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Leahy):
  S. 641. A bill to provide 100,000,000 people with first-time access 
to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis within six 
years by improving the capacity of the United States Government to 
fully implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005; 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on March 22, countries around the world 
will celebrate World Water Day--a day to mark the progress we have made 
protecting this most important resource and to reflect on the many 
challenges we still face in providing clean, safe water to the world's 
poor.
  In 2005, Congress in a bipartisan effort, passed the Senator Paul 
Simon Water for the Poor Act to establish American leadership on this 
issue. The bill had the support of then-Majority Leader Bill Frist and 
then-Congressman Henry Hyde in the House. President George W. Bush 
signed the bill into law.
  The bill was appropriately named after my predecessor in the Senate, 
Paul Simon, who was years ahead of many others recognizing the 
importance of water.
  This act has already done a great deal to help bring clean water and 
sanitation to the world's poor. But we can do more.
  That is why today Senators Corker, Reid, Roberts, Cardin, Isakson, 
Leahy, and I are reintroducing the Senator Paul Simon Water for the 
World Act. This bill would improve the original Water for the Poor 
Act--by strengthening America's ability to provide clean water and 
sanitation to 100 million of the world's poor within six years of 
enactment.
  Tragically, today nearly 1 billion people still lack access to safe 
drinking water, and more than 2 billion still lack basic sanitation. 
Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching critical 
proportions, particularly for agricultural purposes. And the problem 
will only worsen with rapid urbanization worldwide. Experts suggest 
that another 1.2 billion people will lack access to clean water and 
sanitation within 20 years.
  The overall economic loss in Africa alone due to lack of access to 
safe water and basic sanitation is estimated at $28.4 billion a year. 
In many poor nations, women and girls walk 2 or 3 hours or more each 
way, every day, to collect water that is often dirty and unsafe.
  The United Nations estimates that women and girls in sub-Saharan 
Africa spend a total of 40 billion working hours each year collecting 
water. That is equivalent to all of the hours worked in France in a 
year. Clearly, the world needs to do more to help with such a basic 
human need.
  Last year, the Senate passed the Water for the World Act with 33 
cosponsors representing the broad political spectrum of the Senate. You 
see, American leadership in providing the world's poor with this most 
basic of human needs has always been bipartisan in the past--and it 
should be today.
  As we celebrate World Water Day next week, let's renew our commitment 
to making sure the world's poor have access to water and sanitation 
need by sending this critical piece of legislation to the President's 
desk.
  The Water for the World Act is not an effort to create vast new 
programs, but rather to focus our foreign assistance on a 
comprehensive, strategic series of investments related to water and 
sanitation. These are simple, common-sense steps that will make a real 
difference in people's lives.
  Our legislation would make the United States a leader in trying to 
meet Millennium Development Goals for drinking water and sanitation, 
which is to reduce by half the proportion of people without safe water 
and sanitation by 2015. The bill targets aid to areas with the greatest 
need and helps build the capacity of poor nations to meet their own 
water and sanitation challenges.
  The Water for the World Act also supports research of clean water 
technologies and regional partnerships to find solutions to shared 
water challenges. The bill provides technical assistance--best 
practices, credit authorities, and training--to help countries expand 
access to clean water and sanitation. Our development experts will 
design the assistance based on local needs.
  The bill also would strengthen the capacity of USAID and the State 
Department to implement development assistance efforts related to water 
and ramp up U.S. developmental and diplomatic leadership.
  And lastly, the bill includes a 25 percent cost share for these water 
and sanitation programs--requiring USAID to partner with universities, 
philanthropies, and other donors in meeting the key goals.
  USAID's sustained commitment to addressing water and sanitation 
issues has been invaluable in combating poverty and disease worldwide. 
In fact, USAID recently announced the position of a Senior Water 
Coordinator, Chris Holmes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting this 
week. I applaud USAID Administrator Shah for taking this important step 
that will save lives.
  Not only is helping people access clean water and sanitation the 
right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. For example, research 
shows that for every dollar put into clean water and sanitation, $8 in 
returns are gained in health, education and economic productivity.
  Water scarcity can also be a source of conflict and economic 
calamity. Without reliable supplies of water, farmers struggle to grow 
crops, and areas once abundant with water are slowly becoming barren. 
Quite simply, no other issue is more important to human health, peace 
and security than access to sustainable supplies of water.
  Helping other nations is in our national interest. Some say that now 
is not the time to invest in poor nations half a world away, when our 
economy is in crisis and so many Americans are hurting. That view is 
understandable. Recovering from this recession and rebuilding our 
economy for the long term must be, and is, our government's top 
priority.
  But investing in clean water for the world is a smart strategy that 
will make our foreign assistance dollars achieve more--something we 
need in these hard economic times.
  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. 641

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senator Paul Simon Water for 
     the World Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109-121)--
       (A) makes access to safe water and sanitation for 
     developing countries a specific policy objective of United 
     States foreign assistance programs;

[[Page S1849]]

       (B) requires the Secretary of State to--
       (i) develop a strategy to elevate the role of water and 
     sanitation policy; and
       (ii) improve the effectiveness of United States assistance 
     programs undertaken in support of that strategy;
       (C) codifies Target 10 of the United Nations Millennium 
     Development Goals; and
       (D) seeks to reduce by half between 1990 (the baseline 
     year) and 2015--
       (i) the proportion of people who are unable to reach or 
     afford safe drinking water; and
       (ii) the proportion of people without access to basic 
     sanitation.
       (2) On December 20, 2006, the United Nations General 
     Assembly, in GA Resolution 61/192, declared 2008 as the 
     International Year of Sanitation, in recognition of the 
     impact of sanitation on public health, poverty reduction, 
     economic and social development, and the environment.
       (3) On August 1, 2008, Congress passed H. Con. Res. 318, 
     which--
       (A) supports the goals and ideals of the International Year 
     of Sanitation; and
       (B) recognizes the importance of sanitation on public 
     health, poverty reduction, economic and social development, 
     and the environment.
       (4) While progress is being made on safe water and 
     sanitation efforts--
       (A) more than 884,000,000 people throughout the world lack 
     access to safe drinking water; and
       (B) 2 of every 5 people in the world do not have access to 
     basic sanitation services.
       (5) The health consequences of unsafe drinking water and 
     poor sanitation are significant, accounting for--
       (A) nearly 10 percent of the global burden of disease; and
       (B) more than 2,000,000 deaths each year.
       (6) Water scarcity has negative consequences for 
     agricultural productivity and food security for the 
     1,200,000,000 people who, as of 2010, suffer from chronic 
     hunger and seriously threatens the ability of the world to 
     more than double food production to meet the demands of a 
     projected population of 9,000,000,000 people by 2050.
       (7) According to the November 2008 report entitled, 
     ``Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World'', the National 
     Intelligence Council expects rapid urbanization and future 
     population growth to exacerbate already limited access to 
     water, particularly in agriculture-based economies.
       (8) According to the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 
     commissioned by the United Nations, more than \1/5\ of the 
     world population relies on freshwater that is either polluted 
     or excessively withdrawn.
       (9) The impact of water scarcity on conflict and 
     instability is evident in many parts of the world, including 
     the Darfur region of Sudan, where demand for water resources 
     has contributed to armed conflict between nomadic ethnic 
     groups and local farming communities.
       (10) In order to further the United States contribution to 
     safe water and sanitation efforts, it is necessary to--
       (A) expand foreign assistance capacity to address the 
     challenges described in this section; and
       (B) represent issues related to water and sanitation at the 
     highest levels of United States foreign assistance and 
     diplomatic deliberations, including those related to issues 
     of global health, food security, the environment, global 
     warming, and maternal and child mortality.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. 4. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to enable first-time access to safe water and 
     sanitation, on a sustainable basis, for 100,000,000 people in 
     high priority countries (as designated under section 6(f) of 
     the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152h note) within 6 years of the date of enactment of 
     this Act through direct funding, development activities, and 
     partnerships; and
       (2) to enhance the capacity of the United States Government 
     to fully implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor 
     Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121).

     SEC. 5. DEVELOPING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CAPACITY.

       Section 135 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2152h) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Senior Advisor for Water.--
       ``(1) In general.--To carry out the purposes of subsection 
     (a), the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall designate a senior advisor to 
     coordinate and conduct the activities described in this 
     section and the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 
     2005 (Public Law 109-121). The Advisor shall report directly 
     to the Administrator and be known as the `Senior Advisor for 
     Water'. The initial Senior Advisor for Water shall be the 
     individual serving as the USAID Global Water Coordinator as 
     of the date of the enactment of the Senator Paul Simon Water 
     for the World Act of 2010.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Advisor shall--
       ``(A) implement this section and the Senator Paul Simon 
     Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121);
       ``(B) develop and oversee implementation in high priority 
     countries of country-specific water strategies and expertise, 
     in coordination with appropriate United States Agency for 
     International Development Mission Directors, to enable the 
     goal of providing 100,000,000 additional people with 
     sustainable access to safe water and sanitation through 
     direct funding, development activities, and partnerships 
     within 6 years of the date of the enactment of the Senator 
     Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2011; and
       ``(C) place primary emphasis on providing safe, affordable, 
     and sustainable drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in a 
     manner that--
       ``(i) is consistent with sound water resource management 
     principles; and
       ``(ii) utilizes such approaches as direct service 
     provision, capacity building, institutional strengthening, 
     regulatory reform, and partnership collaboration; and
       ``(D) integrate water strategies with country-specific or 
     regional food security strategies.
       ``(3) Capacity.--The Advisor shall be designated 
     appropriate staff and may utilize interagency details or 
     partnerships with universities, civil society, and the 
     private sector, as needed, to strengthen implementation 
     capacity.
       ``(4) Funding sources.--The Advisor shall ensure that at 
     least 25 percent of the overall funding necessary to meet the 
     global goal set forth under paragraph (2)(B) is provided by 
     non-Federal sources, including foreign governments, 
     international institutions, and through partnerships with 
     universities, civil society, and the private sector, 
     including private and corporate foundations.
       ``(f) Special Coordinator for International Water.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To increase the capacity of the 
     Department of State to address international issues regarding 
     safe water, sanitation, integrated river basin management, 
     and other international water programs, the Secretary of 
     State shall establish a Special Coordinator for International 
     Water (referred to in this subsection as the `Special 
     Coordinator'), who shall report to the Under Secretary for 
     Democracy and Global Affairs. The initial Special Coordinator 
     shall be the individual serving as Special Coordinator for 
     Water Resources as of the date of the enactment of the 
     Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2011.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Special Coordinator shall--
       ``(A) oversee and coordinate the diplomatic policy of the 
     United States Government with respect to global freshwater 
     issues, including interagency coordination related to--
       ``(i) sustainable access to safe drinking water, 
     sanitation, and hygiene;
       ``(ii) integrated river basin and watershed management;
       ``(iii) global food security;
       ``(iv) transboundary conflict;
       ``(v) agricultural and urban productivity of water 
     resources;
       ``(vi) disaster recovery, response, and rebuilding,
       ``(vii) pollution mitigation; and
       ``(viii) adaptation to hydrologic change due to climate 
     variability; and
       ``(B) ensure that international freshwater issues are 
     represented--
       ``(i) within the United States Government; and
       ``(ii) in key diplomatic, development, and scientific 
     efforts with other nations and multilateral organizations.
       ``(3) Support staff.--The Special Coordinator shall be 
     designated appropriate staff to support the duties described 
     in paragraph (2).''.

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

       Section 6 of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act 
     of 2005 (22 U.S.C. 2152h note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The Special Coordinator for International Water established 
     under section 135(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2152h(f)) shall take actions to ensure that the 
     safe water and sanitation strategy is integrated into any 
     review or development of a Federal strategy for global 
     development, global health, or global food security that sets 
     forth or establishes the United States mission for global 
     development, guidelines for assistance programs, and how 
     development policy will be coordinated with policies 
     governing trade, immigration, and other relevant 
     international issues.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In developing the program activities needed to implement 
     the strategy, the Secretary shall consider the results of the 
     assessment described in subsection (e)(9).''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) an assessment of all United States Government foreign 
     assistance allocated to the drinking water and sanitation 
     sector during the 3 previous fiscal years, across all United 
     States Government agencies and programs, including an 
     assessment of the extent to which the United States 
     Government's efforts are reaching and supporting the goal of 
     enabling first-time access to safe water and sanitation on a 
     sustainable basis for 100,000,000 people in high priority 
     countries;
       ``(8) recommendations on what the United States Government 
     would need to do to achieve and support the goals referred to 
     in

[[Page S1850]]

     paragraph (7), in support of the United Nation's Millennium 
     Development Goal on access to safe drinking water; and
       ``(9) an assessment of best practices for mobilizing and 
     leveraging the financial and technical capacity of business, 
     governments, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society 
     in forming public-private partnerships that measurably 
     increase access to safe, affordable, drinking water and 
     sanitation.''.

     SEC. 7. DEVELOPING LOCAL CAPACITY.

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

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

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

     SEC. 8. OTHER ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.

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

     SEC. 9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) achieving United States foreign policy objectives 
     requires the consistent and systematic evaluation of the 
     impact of United States foreign assistance programs and 
     analysis on what programs work and why, when, and where they 
     work;
       (2) the design of assistance programs and projects should 
     include the collection of relevant baseline data required to 
     measure outcomes and impacts;
       (3) the design of assistance programs and projects should 
     reflect the knowledge gained from evaluation and analysis;
       (4) a culture and practice of high quality evaluation 
     should be revitalized at agencies managing foreign assistance 
     programs, which requires that the concepts of evaluation and 
     analysis are used to inform policy and programmatic 
     decisions, including the training of aid professionals in 
     evaluation design and implementation;
       (5) the effective and efficient use of funds cannot be 
     achieved without an understanding of how lessons learned are 
     applicable in various environments and under similar or 
     different conditions; and
       (6) project evaluations should be used as sources of data 
     when running broader analyses of development outcomes and 
     impacts.
       (b) Coordination and Integration.--To the extent possible, 
     the Administrator shall coordinate and integrate evaluation 
     of United States water programs with the learning, 
     evaluation, and analysis efforts of the United States Agency 
     for International Development aimed at measuring development 
     impact.

     SEC. 10. UPDATED REPORT REGARDING WATER FOR PEACE AND 
                   SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 11. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS AND 
                   EFFICIENCY OF UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO PROVIDE 
                   SAFE WATER AND SANITATION FOR DEVELOPING 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall submit to the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the effectiveness 
     and efficiency of United States efforts to provide safe water 
     and sanitation for developing countries.
       (b) Elements.--In preparing the report required by 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall, at a minimum--
       (1) identify all programs (and respective Federal agencies) 
     in the Federal Government that perform the mission of 
     providing safe water and sanitation for developing countries, 
     including capacity-building, professional exchanges, and 
     other related programs;
       (2) list the actual costs for the implementation, 
     operation, and support of the individual programs;
       (3) assess the effectiveness of these programs in meeting 
     their goals;
       (4) assess the efficiency of these programs compared to 
     each other and to programs to provide similar aid performed 
     by nongovernmental organizations and other governments, and 
     identify best practices from this assessment;
       (5) identify and assess programs that are duplicative of 
     each other or of efforts by nongovernmental organizations and 
     other governments;
       (6) assess whether appropriate oversight of these programs 
     is being conducted by Federal agencies, especially in the 
     programs in which Federal agencies are utilizing contractors 
     instead of government employees to perform this mission; and
       (7) make such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 642. A bill to permanently reauthorize the EB-E Regional Center 
Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Creating 
American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act. This bill does 
one simple thing: It makes the EB-5 regional center program permanent. 
The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been highly successful since its 
inception in 1992, but it has always lacked the security of assured 
continuity. Extending the program by a few years at a time hampers the 
growth of the program and creates a disincentive for immigrant 
investors to bring their capital investments to the United States. EB-5 
regional center programs have drawn jobs and millions of investment 
dollars to struggling communities and regions of our country. We can 
expand these job-creating

[[Page S1851]]

programs and allow new regional centers to compete for investments with 
quality projects--if the EB-5 authorization is made permanent in law.
  The State of Vermont and Vermont entrepreneurs recognized the 
potential of this program early on, and Vermont gained regional center 
status in 1997. Our State and the Vermont entrepreneurs who took 
advantage of the regional center planned their projects with great 
care. As a result, both the State and our entrepreneurs have 
successfully attracted investors and created jobs. Other states have 
taken note of Vermont's success, and today there are now about 135 
designated regional center programs across the country, which are 
creating jobs in States like Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, 
Iowa, and New York, to name just a few.
  A regional center program is an economic engine for the state or 
region in which it is located. In a small state like Vermont, the 
economic activity generated by EB-5 projects at resorts like Jay Peak 
and Sugarbush has created direct jobs in those communities. Some of 
those jobs are for the construction and expansion phase, and others are 
for long-term employees of the resorts. These resort expansions bring 
more tourists to Vermont to enjoy skiing and summertime activities. 
Then there are the multiplier effects of these projects. Our visitors 
spend money while skiing and touring Vermont, supporting other Vermont 
businesses with every purchase they make. The economic activity is not 
limited to tourism, and there are other innovative projects in the 
pipeline in Vermont--projects like biotechnology; water purification; 
and manufacturing. Because the entire State of Vermont is a designated 
regional center, there is great potential for diversity both in terms 
of projects and geographic location.
  The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal 
permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. 
Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within a 
Regional Center, and they independently apply for EB-5 visas. If 
approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, USCIS, foreign investors 
are granted conditional 2-year green cards. After 2 years, these 
investors must provide proof that they have created at least 10 jobs as 
a result of their investments, and that they have met additional 
investment requirements set by USCIS.
  The Federal Government authorizes approximately 388,000 green cards 
each year. Out of that number, only 10,000 annually are reserved for 
the EB-5 program. The vast majority of the green cards issued by our 
Government are family-based and available to anyone who meets the 
admissibility criteria, irrespective of personal wealth. It is true 
that this program requires a significant up-front investment from a 
prospective immigrant, but that does not disadvantage others who wish 
to become permanent residents. Most importantly, that investment 
directly benefits American communities and workers at no cost to 
American taxpayers. Similar programs have long yielded extraordinary 
economic benefits for the people of Canada, Australia and other 
countries.
  There is virtually no substantive opposition to the EB-5 program. 
Most elected officials will agree that creating jobs and capital 
investment is a good, bipartisan goal.
  The bill I introduce today makes the program permanent, but I am also 
working on a broader package of improvements to the EB-5 program to 
modernize it and ensure it operates efficiently, and as Congress 
intended. We must make sure that the immigration agency has the tools 
it needs to keep the program free from fraud and abuse. We must offer 
stakeholders an efficient process with fair standards so that they have 
confidence in the program. I am developing legislation in consultation 
with stakeholders and agency officials to make changes that will bring 
about lasting improvements for everyone involved.
  The EB-5 regional center program is one small corner of our overall 
immigration system--and it is one that generates tangible, ongoing 
economic benefits for Americans in the form of jobs and capital 
investment in local communities. It is an American success story, and 
we can build on its success with a continuing charter, with careful 
cultivation, and with appropriate oversight.
  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. 642

       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 ``Creating American Jobs 
     Through Foreign Capital Investment Act''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``pilot'' each place such term appears; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``until September 30, 
     2012''.

                          ____________________