[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''.
____________________