[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2732-S2744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. cochran, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Ms. Stabenow):

[[Page S2733]]

  S. 889. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the centennial of the establishment of Mother's 
Day; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Mother's Day Centennial Coin Commemorative Coin Act. I am proud to be 
joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators Manchin, 
Cochran, Stabenow, and Whitehouse.
  With Mother's Day set for Sunday, May 8th, this is a special event 
for all of West Virginia because this annual tribute to our mothers 
began in West Virginia. In 1908, a West Virginian woman by the name of 
Anna Jarvis petitioned her local church to declare May 9th as Mother's 
Day. She hoped that this holiday would serve as a remembrance for 
mothers and a reminder for peace. Within a year, all 46 current States 
held some sort of Mother's Day and a mere 5 years later, Congress and 
the President declared the second Sunday of May national Mother's Day. 
The centennial for the national recognition of Mother's Day will occur 
in 2014, and this bill provides an opportunity to commemorate the 
centennial of this great holiday and further recognize the millions of 
American mothers whose essential role in life cannot be overstated.
  The legislation I am introducing today would recognize the centennial 
of Mother's Day by authorizing the Treasury to mint commemorative 
Mother's Day coins. Profits generated from the sale of these coins 
would be donated to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and The National 
Osteoporosis Foundation. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has raised nearly 
$2 billion for breast cancer research since 1982, and the National 
Osteoporosis Foundation is considered our Nation's leading voluntary 
health organization.
  Each year, more than 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer 
and nearly 40,000 die of this devastating disease. This legislation not 
only honors our Nation's mothers, but also helps to raise funds to 
fight the second most prevalent cancer in women. Thousands of mothers 
have benefited from the efforts of these organizations and they are 
well deserving of our support. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues' 
support for this legislation to honor every mother in our country and 
to prepare for the upcoming centennial. Celebrating Mother's Day by 
helping to promote the health of American mothers seems to be a fitting 
tribute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 890. A bill to establish the supplemental fraud fighting account, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with Senator 
Grassley to introduce the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act of 
2011. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which Senator Grassley and I 
have a long track record of working together, and with great success. 
In these trying economic times, cracking down on the fraud which has 
harmed so many hardworking Americans is more important than ever. I 
look forward to working with Senator Grassley, and with Senators from 
both parties, to quickly pass this crucial legislation.
  In the last Congress, one of the first major bills the Senate 
Judiciary Committee considered, and one of the first bills President 
Obama signed into law, was the Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement and 
Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud investigators and prosecutors 
additional tools and resources to better hold those who commit fraud 
accountable. We heard about the significant success that has already 
resulted from the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and other key 
fraud fighting provisions we championed in a Judiciary Committee 
hearing earlier this year, but it is clear that our work is not done.
  In the past two years, we have learned much more about the scourges 
of financial fraud, mortgage fraud, government contracting fraud, 
health care fraud, and oil and gas fraud. I have also been very 
disturbed by the ongoing reports about inaccurate, forged, or 
fraudulent documents in the housing foreclosure process. Today's bill 
reflects the ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect 
hard-working taxpayers from all of these insidious types of fraud.
  In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered 
well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from 
fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these 
matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that 
investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.
  The Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act capitalizes on this rate 
of return by ensuring that a percentage of money recovered by the 
Government through fines and penalties in fraud cases and other 
criminal cases is reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of 
fraud cases. That means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more 
returns to the government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without 
spending new taxpayer money.
  The bill also makes other modest changes to ensure that prosecutors 
and investigators have the tools they need to combat fraud. It extends 
the international money laundering bill statute to tax evasion crimes. 
This will deter individuals from evading our tax laws by hiding their 
money overseas. It also protects American consumers from identity theft 
by strengthening the prohibition against trafficking in passwords and 
the federal identity theft statute. As more and more business is 
conducted online, we must ensure that consumers' personal information 
remains protected.
  The Secret Service has responsibility for investigating a variety of 
complex financial fraud crimes, including identity theft. This bill 
gives the Secret Service additional tools to conduct critical 
undercover investigations. Fraud cases are often complex and difficult 
to prove, so undercover investigations can be a key way to ferret out 
criminal activity.
  In the last Congress, Senator Grassley and I worked together to 
strengthen the False Claims Act, which empowers whistleblowers to shine 
a light on fraud and recover stolen tax dollars that would otherwise go 
undiscovered. These new laws are already paying off. Since January 
2009, the Department of Justice has recovered more than $6.8 billion in 
False Claims Act cases, far more than any other 2-year period. Today's 
legislation asks the Attorney General to report to Congress on False 
Claims Act settlements, which will help ensure that the False Claims 
Act remains a valuable tool for fighting fraud.
  Finally, the bill promotes accountability within Government. Along 
with requiring reporting, it takes modest steps to ensure that the 
resources already entrusted to the Justice Department are used 
responsibly by strengthening oversight of the Department's Working 
Capital Fund.
  Major fraud cases take time to investigate and prosecute. The renewed 
focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from this administration and 
from Congress will continue to yield significant results. But we must 
continue to give law enforcement agencies the tools and resources 
necessary to root out fraud so that they can continue to recoup losses 
and protect taxpayer funds. Everyday, taxpaying Americans deserve to 
know that their Government is doing all it can to hold responsible 
those who commit fraud and to prevent future fraud.
  Americans are worried about their budgets at home. We need to protect 
their investment in their government. Fighting fraud and protecting 
taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have worked 
together to address in the past, and in these difficult economic times, 
we need to continue in that spirit of bipartisanship. I look forward to 
working with Senator Grassley, the administration, and Senators of both 
parties to crack down on fraud by passing the Fighting Fraud to Protect 
Taxpayers Act.
  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. 890

       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 ``Fighting Fraud to Protect 
     Taxpayers Act of 2011''.

[[Page S2734]]

     SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKING CAPITAL FUND REFORMS.

       Section 11013(a) of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered amounts' means--
       ``(i) the unobligated balances in the debt collection 
     management account; and
       ``(ii) the unobligated balances in the supplemental fraud 
     fighting account;
       ``(B) the term `debt collection management account' means 
     the account established in the Department of Justice Working 
     Capital Fund under paragraph (2);
       ``(C) the term `fraud offense' includes--
       ``(i) an offense under section 30A of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1) and an offense under 
     section 104 or 104A of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 
     1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2 and 78dd-3);
       ``(ii) a securities fraud offense, as defined in section 
     3301 of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(iii) a fraud offense relating to a financial institution 
     or a federally related mortgage loan, as defined in section 3 
     of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 
     U.S.C. 2602), including an offense under section 152, 157, 
     1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1011, or 1014 of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       ``(iv) an offense involving procurement fraud, including 
     defective pricing, bid rigging, product substitution, misuse 
     of classified or procurement sensitive information, grant 
     fraud, fraud associated with labor mischarging, and fraud 
     involving foreign military sales;
       ``(v) an offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     involving fraud;
       ``(vi) an action under subchapter III of chapter 37 of 
     title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the `False 
     Claims Act'), and an offense under chapter 15 of title 18, 
     United States Code;
       ``(vii) an offense under section 1029, 1030, or 1031 of 
     title 18, United States Code; and
       ``(viii) an offense under chapter 63 of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(D) the term `supplemental fraud fighting account' means 
     the supplemental fraud fighting account established in the 
     Department of Justice Working Capital Fund under paragraph 
     (3)(A).
       ``(2) Debt collection management account.--
     Notwithstanding'';
       (2) by striking ``Such amounts'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     paragraph (4), such amounts''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Supplemental fraud fighting account.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established as a separate 
     account in the Department of Justice Working Capital Fund 
     established under section 527 of title 28, United States 
     Code, a supplemental fraud fighting account.
       ``(B) Crediting of amounts.--Notwithstanding section 3302 
     of title 31, United States Code, or any other statute 
     affecting the crediting of collections, the Attorney General 
     may credit, as an offsetting collection, to the supplemental 
     fraud fighting account up to 0.5 percent of all amounts 
     collected pursuant to civil debt collection litigation 
     activities of the Department of Justice.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Attorney 
     General may use amounts in the supplemental fraud fighting 
     account for the cost (including equipment, salaries and 
     benefits, travel and training, and interagency task force 
     operations) of the investigation of and conduct of criminal, 
     civil, or administrative proceedings relating to fraud 
     offenses.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The Attorney General may not use 
     amounts in the supplemental fraud fighting account for the 
     cost of the investigation of or the conduct of criminal, 
     civil, or administrative proceedings relating to--

       ``(I) an offense under section 30A of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1); or
       ``(II) an offense under section 104 or 104A of the Foreign 
     Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2 and 78dd-3).

       ``(D) Conditions.--Subject to paragraph (4), amounts in the 
     supplemental fraud fighting account shall remain available 
     until expended and shall be subject to the terms and 
     conditions of the Department of Justice Working Capital Fund.
       ``(4) Maximum amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are rescinded all covered amounts 
     in excess of $175,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2012 and 
     the end of each fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(B) Ratio.--For any rescission under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall rescind amounts from the 
     debt collection management account and the supplemental fraud 
     fighting account in a ratio of 6 dollars to 1 dollar, 
     respectively.
       ``(5) Annual report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Taxpayer Protection and Fraud 
     Enforcement Act of 2011, and every year thereafter, the 
     Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report that 
     identifies, for the most recent fiscal year before the date 
     of the report--
       ``(A) the amount credited to the debt collection management 
     account and the amount credited to the supplemental fraud 
     fighting account from civil debt collection litigation, which 
     shall include, for each account--
       ``(i) a comprehensive description of the source of the 
     amount credited; and
       ``(ii) a list the civil actions and settlements from which 
     amounts were collected and credited to the account;
       ``(B) the amount expended from the debt collection 
     management account for civil debt collection, which shall 
     include a comprehensive description of the use of amounts in 
     the account that identifies the amount expended for--
       ``(i) paying the costs of processing and tracking civil and 
     criminal debt-collection litigation;
       ``(ii) financial systems;
       ``(iii) debt-collection-related personnel expenses;
       ``(iv) debt-collection-related administrative expenses; and
       ``(v) debt-collection-related litigation expenses;
       ``(C) the amounts expended from the supplemental fraud 
     fighting account and the justification for the expenditure of 
     such amounts; and
       ``(D) the unobligated balance in the debt collection 
     management account and the unobligated balance in the 
     supplemental fraud fighting account at the end of the fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AWARDED IN FALSE CLAIMS ACT 
                   PROSECUTIONS.

       Section 3729(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Any costs paid 
     under this paragraph shall be credited to the appropriations 
     accounts of the executive agency from which the funds used 
     for the costs of the civil action were paid.''.

     SEC. 4. INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS OF SUPPRESSION OR EXCLUSION OF 
                   EVIDENCE.

       Section 3731 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in 
     the second undesignated paragraph by inserting ``Attorney 
     General, the Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney 
     General, or the'' after ``an indictment or information, if 
     the''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTE 
                   TO TAX EVASION CRIMES.

       Section 1956(a)(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``intent to promote--'' and inserting the 
     following: ``intent to--
       ``(i) promote''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following
       ``(ii) engage in conduct constituting a violation of 
     section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 
     or''.

     SEC. 6. STRENGTHENING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN 
                   PASSWORDS.

       Section 1030(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``protected'' before ``computer''; and
       (2) by striking ``, if--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``; or''.

     SEC. 7. CLARIFYING VENUE FOR FEDERAL MAIL FRAUD OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3237(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended in the second undesignated paragraph by 
     adding before the period at the end the following: ``or in 
     any district in which an act in furtherance of the offense is 
     committed''.
       (b) Section Heading.--Section 3237 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``begun'' and all that follows and inserting ``taking place 
     in more than one district''.
       (c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     211 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 3237 and inserting the 
     following:

``3237. Offenses taking place in more than one district.''.

     SEC. 8. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRET SERVICE.

       Section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``641, 656, 657,'' after ``510,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``493, 657,'' and inserting ``493,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``federally insured''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) For any undercover investigative operation of the 
     United States Secret Service that is necessary for the 
     detection and prosecution of a crime against the United 
     States, the United States Secret Service may--
       ``(A) use amounts appropriated for the United States Secret 
     Service, including unobligated balances available from prior 
     fiscal years, to--
       ``(i) purchase property, buildings, and other facilities 
     and lease space within the United States (including the 
     District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of 
     the United States), without regard to sections 1341 and 3324 
     of title 31, section 8141 of title 40, and sections 3901, 
     4501 through 4506, 6301, and 6306(a) of title 41; and
       ``(ii) establish, acquire, and operate on a commercial 
     basis proprietary corporations and business entities as part 
     of the undercover investigative operation, without regard to 
     sections 9102 and 9103 of title 31;
       ``(B) deposit in banks and other financial institutions 
     amounts appropriated for the United States Secret Service, 
     including unobligated balances available from prior fiscal 
     years, and the proceeds from the undercover investigative 
     operation, without regard to section 648 of this title and 
     section 3302 of title 31; and

[[Page S2735]]

       ``(C) use the proceeds from the undercover investigative 
     operation to offset necessary and reasonable expenses 
     incurred in the undercover investigative operation, without 
     regard to section 3302 of title 31.
       ``(2) The authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised 
     only upon a written determination by the Director of the 
     United States Secret Service (in this subsection referred to 
     as the `Director') that the action being authorized under 
     paragraph (1) is necessary for the conduct of an undercover 
     investigative operation. A determination under this paragraph 
     may continue in effect for the duration of an undercover 
     investigative operation, without fiscal year limitation.
       ``(3) If the Director authorizes the proceeds from an 
     undercover investigative operation to be used as described in 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), as soon as 
     practicable after the proceeds are no longer necessary for 
     the conduct of the undercover investigative operation, the 
     proceeds remaining shall be deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(4) As early as the Director determines practicable 
     before the date on which a corporation or business entity 
     established or acquired under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) with a net 
     value of more than $50,000 is to be liquidated, sold, or 
     otherwise disposed of, the Director shall notify the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the circumstances of 
     the corporation or business entity and the liquidation, sale, 
     or other disposition. The proceeds of the liquidation, sale, 
     or other disposition, after obligations are met, shall be 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(5)(A) The Director shall--
       ``(i) on a quarterly basis, conduct detailed financial 
     audits of closed undercover investigative operations for 
     which a written determination is made under paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(ii) submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a 
     written report of the results of each audit conducted under 
     clause (i).
       ``(B) On the date on which the budget of the President is 
     submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31 for each year, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report 
     summarizing the audits conducted under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     relating to the previous fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 9. FALSE CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS.

       (a) Reports by Attorney General.--Not later than November 1 
     of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report that 
     describes each settlement or compromise of any claim, suit, 
     or other action entered into with the Department of Justice 
     that--
       (1) relates to an alleged violation of section 1031 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or section 3729 of title 31, 
     United States Code (including all settlements of alternative 
     remedies); and
       (2) results from a claim for damages of more than $100,000.
       (b) Contents of Reports.--The description of each 
     settlement or compromise required to be included in an annual 
     report under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) the total amount of the settlement or compromise and 
     the portions of the settlement attributable to violations of 
     various statutory authorities;
       (2) the amount of actual damages, or if the amount of 
     actual damages is not available a good faith estimate of the 
     damages, that have been sustained and the minimum and maximum 
     potential civil penalties that may be incurred as a 
     consequence of the conduct of the defendant that is the 
     subject of the settlement or compromise;
       (3) the basis for any estimate of damages sustained and the 
     potential civil penalties incurred;
       (4) the amount of the settlement that represents damages 
     and the multiplier or percentage of the actual damages used 
     in determining the amount to be paid under the settlement or 
     compromise;
       (5) the amount of the settlement that represents civil 
     penalties and the percentage of the maximum potential civil 
     penalty to be paid under the settlement or compromise;
       (6) the amount of the settlement that represents criminal 
     fines and a statement of the basis for the fines;
       (7) a description of the period during which the matter to 
     which the settlement or compromise relates was pending, 
     including--
       (A) the date on which the complaint was originally filed;
       (B) a description of the period the matter remained under 
     seal;
       (C) the date on which the Department of Justice determined 
     whether to intervene in the case; and
       (D) the date on which the settlement or compromise was 
     finalized;
       (8) whether a defendant or any division, subsidiary, 
     affiliate, or related entity of a defendant had previously 
     entered into a settlement or compromise relating to section 
     1031 of title 18, United States Code, or section 3730(b) of 
     title 31, United States Code, and, if so, the date of and 
     amount to be paid under each such settlement or compromise;
       (9) whether a defendant or any division, subsidiary, 
     affiliate, or related entity of a defendant--
       (A) entered into a corporate integrity agreement relating 
     to the settlement or compromise;
       (B) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement or 
     nonprosecution agreement relating to the settlement or 
     compromise; or
       (C)(i) previously entered into--
       (I) a corporate integrity agreement relating to a 
     settlement or compromise relating to a different violation of 
     section 3730(b) of title 31, United States Code; or
       (II) a deferred prosecution agreement or nonprosecution 
     agreement relating to a settlement or compromise relating to 
     a different violation of section 1031 of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       (ii) if the defendant had entered an agreement described in 
     clause (i), whether the agreement applied to the conduct that 
     is the subject of the settlement or compromise described in 
     the report or similar conduct;
       (10) for a settlement involving Medicaid, the amounts paid 
     to the Federal Government and to each State participating in 
     the settlement or compromise;
       (11) whether civil investigative demands were issued in 
     process of investigating the matter to which the settlement 
     or compromise relates;
       (12) for a qui tam action--
       (A) the percentage of the settlement amount awarded to the 
     relator; and
       (B) whether the relator requested a fairness hearing 
     relating to the percentage received by the relator or the 
     total amount of the settlement;
       (13) the extent to which officers of the agency that was 
     the victim of the loss resolved by the settlement or 
     compromise participated in the settlement negotiations; and
       (14) the extent to which a relator or counsel for a 
     relators participated in the settlement negotiations.

     SEC. 10. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT AND FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Section 1028A of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended in the section heading by adding ``and 
     fraud'' at the end.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 1028A and 
     inserting the following:

``1028A. Aggravated identity theft and fraud.''.

     SEC. 11. FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, AUTHENTICATION 
                   FEATURES, AND INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1028(a)(7) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``(including an 
     organization)'' after ``person''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 1028 and 
     inserting the following:

``1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification 
              documents, authentication features, and information.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 893. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
financial assistance to the State of Louisiana for a pilot program to 
develop measures to eradicate or control feral swine and to assess and 
restore wetlands damaged by feral swine; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will be a critical component in our efforts to recover and rebuild 
Louisiana's vast coastal wetlands. My bill works to address the 
threatening problem of coastal wetland deterioration in Louisiana 
caused by non-native, invasive feral swine populations. Few are aware 
that the marsh and wetlands along Louisiana's coast comprise some 40 
percent of the Nation's total salt marshes. Louisiana's coastline is a 
national treasure. Yet, this national treasure is disappearing at an 
alarming rate due to a number of natural and man-made factors, 
including the destruction of wetlands caused by non-native feral pig 
populations that are literally eating away the coast.
  Louisiana's coastline is an increasingly fragile and finite source of 
protection. It protects against storm surges, the varied effects of 
climate change, and it protects the many communities that thrive on the 
coastal plains of Louisiana. The survival of the affected acreage is 
crucial not only to the continued existence of my State and the states 
directly above mine--which will be affected if Louisiana's wetlands 
continue to deteriorate--but also to our Nation's energy independence 
and security. Forty percent of America's refining capacity flows from 
the Gulf Coast to service the rest of our Nation, and if Louisiana's 
coastline continues to disappear, our Nation's refiners and energy 
infrastructure will be jeopardized. As such, the loss of our

[[Page S2736]]

wetlands threatens not only our teeming wildlife, but also land, lives, 
energy infrastructure, and navigation.
  That is why I rise today to introduce the Feral Swine Eradication and 
Control Pilot Program Act of 2011, to address the challenges these 
species pose to our efforts to reverse coastal wetland deterioration.
  Every 30 minutes, a portion of Louisiana's coast the size of a 
football field is converted from healthy marsh into open water. Since 
1930, 1.2 million acres have been lost. That is an area roughly the 
size of Delaware. Scientists predict that Louisiana will lose another 
700 square miles of coastal wetlands by 2050. That is an area the size 
of the greater Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metro areas.
  Exacerbating this problem is the irresponsible introduction of the 
feral hog to Louisiana. This invasive species has caused extensive 
damage to our natural wildlife habitat. In Louisiana, the wild 
omnivores compete with native wildlife for food resources; prey on 
young domestic animals and wildlife; and carry diseases that can affect 
pets, livestock, wildlife and people. Scientists now believe that the 
feral hogs are not only imposing enormous damage to the marsh, but are 
also negatively impacting native freshwater mussels and insects by 
contributing E. coli to water systems.
  According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the 
wild pig is the most prolific large mammal in North America and given 
adequate nutrition, its populations in an area can double in just four 
months.
  Louisiana's landscape has already been ravaged by the nutria rodent. 
In 2002, the first program was created to combat the increasing nutria 
populations. This program, the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program, CNCP, 
incentivized trappers to catch nutria in return for monetary 
compensation. This program has proven successful at decreasing nutria 
populations and significantly reducing their impact to coastal 
wetlands.
  However, more effort was needed to further reduce the nutria damage 
to wetlands, both in Louisiana and in other marshy environments, 
including Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. The Nutria Eradication and Control 
Act was enacted in 2003 to provide a critical supplement of funding to 
strengthen the Coast-wide Nutria Control Program. In July of 2009, I 
joined my friend and colleague Senator Cardin in introducing the re-
authorization of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. These two 
measures to combat nutria populations have been instrumental in 
reducing the nutria damage to Louisiana's wetlands.
  Unfortunately, now Louisiana has another pest eroding its marshes and 
wetlands. Feral swine are listed by the World Conservation Union, IUCN, 
as one of the top 100 invasive species worldwide. If action is not 
taken to control the feral swine population, our biologists fear these 
animals will undo much of the progress Louisiana has made in 
controlling the nutria population. It is my hope that with the help of 
my colleagues, we can pass this bill to help eradicate these pests from 
our vanishing coastline once and for all.
  For these reasons, it is imperative that we control the feral swine 
in Louisiana. As such, the bill I am introducing today authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to allocate funding to create a pilot program 
modeled off of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. This program 
will assess the nature and extent of damage to the wetlands in 
Louisiana and develop methods to eradicate or control the feral swine 
population, and restore the coastal areas damaged by this invasive 
species. It is a small program, but the benefits are potentially vast. 
It is my hope that by creating this program, we can achieve similar 
success at combating feral hogs as we have had at controlling nutria 
populations.
  It is for all of these reasons that this legislation is crucial. I 
ask that my colleagues support its prompt passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Akaka, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Webb, Mr. Tester, 
        Mr. Begich, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Brown of 
        Massachusetts, Mr. Moran and Mr. Boozman):
  S. 894. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
an increase, effective December 1, 2011, in the rates of compensation 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of 
dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain 
disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' 
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011.
  Effective December 1, 2011, this measure directs the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to increase the rates of veterans' compensation to 
keep pace with a rise in the cost-of-living, should an adjustment be 
prompted by an increase in the Consumer Price Index, CPI. Referred to 
as the COLA, this important legislation would make an increase 
available to veterans at the same level as an increase provided to 
recipients of Social Security benefits.
  All of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Senators 
Burr, Rockefeller, Akaka, Sanders, Brown of Ohio, Webb, Tester, Begich, 
Isakson, Wicker, Johanns, Brown of Massachusetts, Moran, and Boozman 
join me in introducing this important legislation. I look forward to 
our continued work together to improve the lives of our Nation's 
veterans.
  Last year, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public 
Law 111-247, which would have increased veterans' compensation rates 
had there been an increase in the CPI. While there was no cost-of-
living increase in 2011 due to a decline in the CPI, the 2012 
adjustment was projected to be .9 percent in the President's fisal year 
2012 budget submission.
  The COLA affects so many important benefits, including veterans' 
disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for 
surviving spouses and children. It is projected that over 3.5 million 
veterans and survivors will receive compensation benefits in fiscal 
year 2012.
  As the daughter of a disabled veteran, I understand the critical 
nature of these benefits as many recipients depend upon these tax-free 
payments for their most basic needs, in addition to the needs of their 
spouses and children. We have an obligation to the men and women who 
have sacrificed so much to serve our country and who now deserve 
nothing less than the full support of a grateful Nation. The COLA 
brings us one step closer to fulfilling our Nation's promise to care 
for our brave veterans and their families.
  I ask our colleagues to show their continued support for our Nation's 
veterans by working together to ensure this benefit remains available 
and is not diminished by the effects of inflation.
  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. 894

       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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND 
                   DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2011, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance 
     with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November 
     30, 2011, for the payment of disability compensation and 
     dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions 
     specified in subsection (b).
       (b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be 
     increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar 
     amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
       (2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the 
     dollar amounts under section 1115(1) of such title.
       (3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section 
     1162 of such title.
       (4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving 
     spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
       (5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
     Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of 
     such title.
       (c) Determination of Increase.--
       (1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     dollar amount described

[[Page S2737]]

     in subsection (b) shall be increased by the same percentage 
     as the percentage by which benefit amounts payable under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) 
     are increased effective December 1, 2011, as a result of a 
     determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(i)).
       (2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph 
     (1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the 
     next lower whole dollar amount.
       (d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made 
     under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation 
     payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72 
     Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter 
     11 of title 38, United States Code.
       (e) Publication of Adjusted Rates.--The Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     amounts specified in subsection (b), as increased under 
     subsection (a), not later than the date on which the matters 
     specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by 
     reason of a determination made under section 215(i) of such 
     Act during fiscal year 2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Udall of Colorado, 
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Mr. Lee):
  S. 897. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have 
the authority to use certain payments for certain non-coal reclamation 
projects and acid mine remediation programs; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to 
public health and safety and the environment. This legislation 
addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, 
which restricts the ability of states to use certain funds under the 
Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal abandoned mine 
reclamation and for the remediation of acid mine drainage. This bill is 
identical to legislation that was reported by voice vote by the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last Congress.
  Amendments to SMCRA, passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care 
Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, reauthorized collection of an AML fee 
on coal produced in the United States and made certain modifications to 
the AML program. The amendments also provided that so-called ``make-
up'' funds, amounts that had accrued to the states and tribes for 
several years under the formula in SMCRA but had not been previously 
appropriated, be paid out to the states and tribes over a period of 
years as mandatory payments.
  Under the AML program, which is administered by DOI, funds are 
expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for 
protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and 
restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past 
mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal 
mine reclamation, but beginning in 1977 when SMCRA was first enacted, 
funds have been available pursuant to section 409 to address abandoned 
non-coal mine sites. A review of the legislative history of this 
provision and the long-standing administrative interpretation of 
section 409 reveals that the section is intended to address ``non-coal 
mine reclamation'' on abandoned mine lands.
  Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah have 
prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing 
reclamation work on both abandoned coal and non-coal mine sites. While 
activities on non-coal mine sites have consumed a relatively 
insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML 
program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these 
states is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done.
  Similarly, the use of AML funds for remediation of acid mine drainage 
has been important in many areas, especially in the Appalachian states, 
such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Until enactment of 
the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, states and tribes with approved AML 
programs had been able to set aside up to 30 percent of their AML funds 
for acid mine drainage remediation without respect to time limitations 
that would otherwise apply.
  In 2007, the Solicitor at the Department of the Interior interpreted 
the amendments as limiting the ability of uncertified states and tribes 
to use the ``make-up'' AML funds for priority non-coal abandoned mine 
reclamation and acid mine drainage set-aside programs. See Memorandum 
Opinion M-37014. The Solicitor found that these make-up funds cannot be 
used for priority non-coal mine reclamation in the case of states and 
tribes that had not certified completion of their coal reclamation work 
and likewise cannot be used for acid mine drainage set-aside programs.
  The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is 
an unfortunate and unintended interpretation of the 2006 amendments by 
modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be 
available for non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine 
drainage set-aside programs as it was prior to the passage of the 
amendments in 2006.
  I want to underscore that the bill does not increase funding to the 
states and tribes. It simply clarifies that states and tribes can have 
flexibility to use AML funds that they receive under existing law for 
these two important uses, as was the case prior to the 2006 amendments. 
I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has 
important implications nationwide.
  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. 897

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

     SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

       (a) Reclamation Fee.--Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ``and section 
     411(h)(1)'' after ``paragraphs (1) and (5)''.
       (b) Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels.--Section 409(b) of 
     the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 
     U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ``and section 
     411(h)(1)'' after ``section 402(g)''.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ``section 403'' 
     and inserting ``section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 898. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to direct the 
Secretary to establish a comprehensive design standard program to 
prevent, control, and treat polluted stormwater runoff from federally 
funded highways and roads, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that 
will help prevent millions of gallons of pollution from entering our 
Nation's precious water resources. The season we are in makes my 
legislation particularly timely. Spring is one of the wettest times of 
year, and with every Spring shower polluted stormwater runoff washes a 
myriad of chemicals pollutants, sediment, debris, oil and grease, and 
other contaminates from our nation's roads and highways into our lakes, 
rivers, streams, bays, and coastal waters.
  Stormwater is the Nation's largest source of water pollution. While 
rain itself contains air pollution particulates that are deposited in 
every drop, most stormwater pollution is picked up on the surface and 
carried off as runoff. Stormwater washes contaminants like oil, grease, 
heavy metals, nutrients, asbestos, sediments, road salts and other de-
icing agents, brake dust, and road debris from the millions of miles of 
America's roads and into storm drains that discharge into nearby 
waters. Almost all of this polluted stormwater is discharged without 
any treatment.
  When rain falls on these hard, impervious surfaces it often has no 
where to go but down the channels created by curbs and retaining walls, 
into storm drains and into the nearest natural water body. According to 
research compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric 
Administration's, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, the U.S. is 
covered by more than 112,600 square kilometers of impervious surfaces. 
That is a space larger than the State of Ohio. With 985,139 miles of 
Federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the country, 
polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters.

[[Page S2738]]

  The effects of polluted stormwater runoff are real. For example, the 
Anacostia River--Washington's ``other'' and often forgotten river--can 
be seen from the Capitol Dome as it flows out of Prince George's 
County, MD, and into the District and on to its confluence with the 
Potomac. Runoff from within the 176 square mile watershed of the 
Anacostia, most of which is in Maryland, but also includes the east 
side of D.C. and the entire Capitol complex, all makes its way into the 
Anacostia. The stormwater that enters the Anacostia is extremely 
polluted from the thousands of acres of road surfaces that cover the 
watershed, which exacerbates the incidence of combined sewer overflows 
and has impaired the Anacostia for many years. It is no coincidence 
that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the Anacostia's bottom-
feeder catfish to have the highest incidence of liver tumors than any 
other population of catfish in the country. The cause of the tumors are 
the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a by-product of 
fuel combustion, that come from vehicle tailpipe emissions and are 
deposited on the road and in the air and then washed into the river 
with every shower or thunderstorm.
  This is not a problem unique to Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay 
region, nor is it a problem unique to urban environments as opposed to 
rural environments. Polluted runoff is a problem that affects any 
watershed where impervious paved road and highway surfaces have altered 
the natural hydrology of a watershed. Over time, federal highway policy 
has come to recognize the drastic impacts highways and surface 
transportation can have on the environment and on water quality. Title 
23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant 
role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and 
sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive 
solutions.'' The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 
ISTEA, authorized using transportation enhancement funds for 
``environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway 
runoff.'' It is important to note, however, that this is just one of 12 
types of eligible enhancement projects and only 1.1 percent of 
enhancement project funds have gone toward environmental mitigation 
projects since 1992.
  In 2008, at the request of the House Transportation & Infrastructure 
Committee, the Government Accountability Office issued a report 
examining key issues and challenges that need to be addressed in the 
next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report 
highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the 
environment. Taking a policy approach to require that the planning, 
design, and construction of highways are done in an environmentally 
responsible manner, with an eye toward mitigating the water quality 
impacts highways have on our Nation's water resources, will help 
address this issue and better meet our Nation's transportation goals. 
This legislation also helps advance the October 5, 2009, Executive 
Order affirming that Federal policy and Federal agencies shall 
``conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and 
stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; 
and leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable 
technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products and 
services.''
  Over the years, The U.S. Department of Transportation has established 
design standards for federal-aid highways to improve the performance 
and safety of our highway infrastructure. These design standard 
improvements were the result of obvious safety and engineering problems 
that needed to be addressed. These design standard are essential to 
ensuring that the Federal Government's investment in transportation 
infrastructure is resulting in a well-designed, safe and reliable 
``product'' for the benefit of the American people.
  The same can be said for the need for establishing environmental 
design standards for Federal-aid highways as a means of protecting 
water quality. While stormwater runoff from highways may be classified 
as non-point source pollution, it is unquestionably the source of a 
wide range of contaminants that impair rivers, lakes, streams and 
coastal waters; create costly remedial situations; and detract from the 
value and health of our precious water resources. Requiring Federal-aid 
highways to meet an environmental standard for protecting water quality 
will improve the value of the Federal Government's investment in our 
Nation's highway infrastructure.
  The approach my legislation takes to mitigate polluted highway runoff 
is through the implementation of a design standard, developed by the 
United States Department of Transportation, requiring the maintenance 
or restoration of the pre-development hydrology of a federal-aid 
highway project site. This same approach was made law by the Energy 
Independence & Security Act of 2007 for the development of new Federal 
buildings and facilities.
  My bill would require that all substantial federal highway projects 
must be planned and designed ``to ensure that covered projects are 
sited, constructed and maintained in accordance with design standards 
intended to protect surface and ground water quality and ensure the 
long-term management of stormwater originating from Federal-aid 
highways.'' This would be achieved by approaches that avoid and 
minimize alteration of natural features and hydrology and maximize the 
use of onsite pollution control measures using existing terrain and 
natural features.
  My bill also recognizes that geography and other physical 
characteristics of the land may not always allow on-site treatment of 
polluted highway runoff. When conditions are impracticable my 
legislation would allow for an ``appropriate off-site runoff pollution 
mitigation program'' within the watershed of a Federal-aid highway 
project site that can protect against the water quality impacts of the 
project.
  The Clean Water Act requires that we protect the waters of the United 
States. As with most pollution abatement strategies, preventing 
stormwater pollution is cheaper, more effective, and easier to 
implement than trying to clean up and remediate the problem after 
contamination has occurred.
  Not addressing stormwater pollution at its source just kicks the 
proverbial can down the road for someone else to deal with. When water 
resources are contaminated by polluted highway runoff, mitigating the 
pollution, which is a preventable discharge in the first place, should 
not be the responsibility of local goverments, wastewater treatment 
facilities, or drinking water utilities.
  Water pollution has many sources and our nation's highways produce a 
tremendous volume of contaminated stormwater. Time and time again, 
experience has taught us that addressing pollution at its source is the 
most effective means of abating pollution. It is time we applied this 
principle to our Nation's Federal-aid highways. I urge my colleagues to 
support my legislation and help move our country closer to meeting the 
goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of our national 
transportation policy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Merkley, and Mrs. Hagan):
  S. 899. A bill to provide for the eradication and control of nutria; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce the Nutria 
Eradication and Control Act of 2011 along with my colleagues, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Mikulski, Senator Merkley, and Senator Hagan. This 
legislation will build on the successful Nutria Eradication and Control 
Act of 2003. This program encourages habitat protection, education, 
research, monitoring, and capacity building to provide for the long-
term protection of coastal wetlands from destruction caused by nutria.
  Invasive species are one of the largest threats to biodiversity in 
the United States today. As invasive species go, the nutria is one of 
the most destructive creatures we have, especially in my home State of 
Maryland and in Louisiana.
  The nutria is a large, semi-aquatic rodent that was originally 
brought to the United States to bolster the fur trade in the early 20th 
century. Unfortunately, we underestimated their strong appetite and 
high reproductive

[[Page S2739]]

potential. Since their introduction, the nutria have damaged millions 
of acres of wetlands and countless miles of shoreline and have even 
earned a spot among the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature's list of the world's 100 worst invasive alien species. By the 
early 1990s, the Chesapeake Bay/Delmarva Peninsula population was 
estimated to exceed 150,000 animals.
  These ``eating machines'' can consume up to 25 percent of their body 
weight in plants per day, feasting directly on plant roots. This wrecks 
havoc on our wetlands, turning our once productive lands into barren 
mud flats. The destruction exacerbates the damaging impacts of ongoing 
land subsidence and sea level rise.
  We understand how important our wetlands are and provide numerous 
ecosystem services to our society. They provide fish and wildlife 
habitat, flood protection, erosion control, and water quality 
preservation.
  In my own State of Maryland, nutria invaded the Blackwater National 
Wildlife Refuge nearly 6 decades ago, destroying vital habitat for 
native shorebirds, muskrats, and blue crabs. They are responsible for 
the loss of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands in this refuge alone.
  We must remember this has a significant impact on people--people who 
depend on it for their livelihood and for people who use it for 
recreation. The loss of Blackwater wetlands, that are vital to the 
fishery, was estimated to cost Maryland's economy nearly $4 million 
annually. Millions of Americans spend billions of dollars pursuing 
their fishing, hunting and wildlife watching activities, which 
contribute to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that 
support wildlife-related recreation.
  In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to develop a 
successful public-private partnership program to address nutria in 
Maryland. This financial support has directly led to the successful 
eradiation of nutria from 150,000 acres of the approximate 400,000 
acres of wetland habitats that they infest. The project success is due 
to strategic planning, permanent and dedicated staff members, and 
cooperation with private landowners.
  In Louisiana, an incentive program is used to encourage trappers to 
trap nutria. Since the implementation of the program, the damage to 
coastal wetlands has been reduced from 90,000 to 20,000 acres.
  The management techniques developed in Maryland and Louisiana have 
already been exported to other states like Oregon and Washington to 
control their own nutria populations and minimize the damage done to 
their marsh habitats. Healthy wetlands are returning to places where 
nutria have been removed. But the job is not yet done.
  Last Congress, I introduced the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 
2009 to continue and improve the successful nutria eradication program 
in Maryland and Louisiana and expand it to other significantly impacted 
states like Oregon and Washington. This bill passed out of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee in 2009 and had the support of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural 
Resources, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, and the 
Nature Conservancy.
  Today, I proudly rise again and rededicate myself to passing the 
Nutria Eradication Control Act of 2011. This bill will authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the states 
of Maryland, Louisiana, Delaware, Oregon, Washington, the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, and North Carolina to eradicate and control nutria 
populations and restore nutria-damaged wetlands.
  We know how valuable our wetlands are. We know how destructive the 
nutria is. We know what we can do to stop the nutria and that these 
programs work. I urge my colleagues to remember that we have a 
responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and to join me 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. 899

       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 ``Nutria Eradication and 
     Control Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       Section 2 of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-16; 117 Stat. 621) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and in Louisiana'' and 
     inserting ``, the State of Louisiana, and other coastal 
     States'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in Maryland and 
     Louisiana on Federal, State, and private land'' and inserting 
     ``on Federal, State, and private land in the States of 
     Maryland and Louisiana and in other coastal States''; and
       (C) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) This Act authorizes the Maryland Nutria Project, 
     which has successfully eradicated nutria from more than 
     130,000 acres of Chesapeake Bay wetlands in the State of 
     Maryland and facilitated the creation of voluntary, public-
     private partnerships and more than 406 cooperative landowner 
     agreements.
       ``(4) This Act and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 
     Protection, and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.) 
     authorize the Coastwide Nutria Control Program, which has 
     reduced nutria-impacted wetland acres in the State of 
     Louisiana from 80,000 acres to 23,141 acres.
       ``(5) The proven techniques developed under this Act that 
     are eradicating nutria in the State of Maryland and reducing 
     the acres of nutria-impacted wetlands in the State of 
     Louisiana should be applied to nutria eradication or control 
     programs in other nutria-infested coastal States''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to 
     the States of Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, 
     Oregon, Virginia, and Washington to carry out activities--
       ``(1) to eradicate or control nutria; and
       ``(2) to restore nutria damaged wetlands.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       The Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-16; 117 Stat. 621) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 3 and 4 as sections 4 and 5, 
     respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 2 the following:

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' means each 
     of the States of Delaware, Oregon, North Carolina, Virginia, 
     and Washington.
       ``(2) Program.--The term `program' means the nutria 
     eradication program established by section 4(a). ``
       ``(3) Public-private partnership.--The term `public-private 
     partnership' means a voluntary, cooperative project 
     undertaken by governmental entities or public officials and 
     affected communities, local citizens, nongovernmental 
     organizations, or other entities or persons in the private 
     sector.'
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 4. NUTRIA ERADICATION PROGRAM.

       Section 4 of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-16; 117 Stat. 621) (as redesignated by 
     section 3) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, provide financial assistance 
     to the States of Maryland and Louisiana and the coastal 
     States to implement measures--
       ``(1) to eradicate or control nutria; and
       ``(2) to restore wetlands damaged by nutria.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the State of'' before 
     ``Maryland'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``other States'' and 
     inserting ``the coastal States''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``marshland'' and 
     inserting ``wetlands'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``(c) Activities'' and inserting ``(c) 
     Activities in the State of Maryland''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and updated in March 2009'' before the 
     period at the end;
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``financial assistance 
     provided by the Secretary under this section'' and inserting 
     ``the amounts made available under subsection (f) to carry 
     out the program''; and
       (5) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to 
     subsection (e), for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out the program such sums as are necessary.''.

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       Section 5 of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-16; 117 Stat. 621) (as redesignated by 
     section 3) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2002 document entitled 
     `Eradication Strategies for Nutria in the Chesapeake and 
     Delaware Bay Watersheds'; and'' and inserting ``March 2009 
     update of the document entitled `Eradication Strategies for 
     Nutria in the Chesapeake and

[[Page S2740]]

     Delaware Bay Watersheds' and originally dated March 2002;'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``develop'' and inserting ``continue''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) develop, in cooperation with the State of Delaware 
     Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 
     the State of Virginia Department of Game and Inland 
     Fisheries, the State of Oregon Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife, the State of North Carolina Department of 
     Environment and Natural Resources, and the State of 
     Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, long-term nutria 
     control or eradication programs, as appropriate, with the 
     objective of--
       ``(A) significantly reducing and restoring the damage 
     nutria cause to coastal wetlands in the coastal States; and
       ``(B) promoting voluntary, public-private partnerships to 
     eradicate or control nutria and restoring nutria-damaged 
     wetlands in the coastal States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 900. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to award 
grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs 
about the Holocaust; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Simon 
Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act. This important 
legislation would provide competitive grants for educational 
organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available 
throughout this Nation.
  I would like to commend my former colleague in the House, 
Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on this issue. I also want to 
thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for agreeing to 
be an original cosponsor.
  This past Monday, we solemnly commemorated Holocaust Remembrance Day, 
in memorial of perhaps the greatest crime ever perpetrated against 
humanity. As we reflect upon the tragedies of the events surrounding 
the Holocaust, the lives lost, the families destroyed, the potential 
unfulfilled, we must renew our oath to never forget, so this dark 
chapter in history will never be repeated.
  We must forever remember the approximately six million Jewish men, 
women and children, as well as millions of others who faced 
persecution, displacement, and death at the hands of the Nazis. We must 
remember their stories not just to honor their lives, but more 
importantly, to educate the next generation about the dangers of 
intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. I could not think of a better 
namesake for this bill, Simon Wiesenthal, who honored the memories of 
those lost by dedicating his life to bringing those responsible to 
justice.
  Some people might ask why we need to learn more about something that 
happened over 65 years ago and an entire ocean away. The same critics 
might argue that anti-Semitism, while terrible, is a relic of the past 
that will never be repeated. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and 
we, as a Nation, must not ignore this appalling truth.
  Even to this day, we do not have to go half way around the world to 
find examples of intolerance and hate; rather we can look into our own 
neighborhoods and communities. According to the FBI, there were 1,376 
hate crimes motivated by religious bias in 2009. More than 7 out of 10 
of these crimes were perpetrated against Jews because of their 
religion. In fact, even in my own State of New Jersey, a State of 
immense diversity, tolerance and understanding, we have seen a number 
of incidents that tear at the fabric of our society.
  In July of 2010, a Rabbi and his 12 year old son were subject to 
anti-Semitic slurs from an unidentified man in a sedan as they walked 
towards their synagogue in Edison, NJ.
  A few days after, the Edison Police Department investigated a second 
anti-Semitic incident at a Lexus dealership where eight cars had been 
vandalized with swastikas.
  Last year in Chatham, New Jersey, anti-Semitic leaflets with the 
words ``Kill Jews'' were littered throughout the town. Local police 
found the culprit and arrested him. However, Chatham Township Police 
said they could only charge the offender with littering because he was 
not apparently targeting an individual.
  New Jersey college students at Rutgers University have also 
experienced this terrible discrimination on numerous occasions. This 
past fall, when a guest speaker came to present at a Jewish event on 
campus, he was continually harassed by a large group of students that 
shouted slurs and disrupted his speech several times. Since then, there 
has been an escalation of anti-Semitic incidents. One of which included 
a student event this past January that attempted to exploit the 
Holocaust and accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing. When students showed 
up in peaceful protest, they were charged an admission fee, while 
supporters of the event were admitted for free.
  These troubling events do not occur in a vacuum. They are fed by 
bigotry, hatred, and above all else: ignorance. This ignorance is 
fueled by provocative, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that both 
threaten the safety and well being of individuals, while also insulting 
the honor of millions of Jewish people. So called academics seek to 
rewrite history to minimize and spin the facts surrounding the 
Holocaust; the government of Iran has waged campaigns not just to 
rewrite, but to simply erase an inconvenient truth. This is not an 
academic issue shrouded in intellectualism; Holocaust denial is bald-
faced anti-Semitism, rooted in hate, and it has no place in our 
society.
  We cannot sit idly by and hope that time alone will heal these 
wounds. We must take proactive steps to ensure that our society may 
properly study and take lessons from the Holocaust. Holocaust education 
is essential for school children so that we may achieve this goal.
  Although some States now require the Holocaust to be taught in public 
schools, the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act goes 
further and makes grants available to organizations that instruct 
students, teachers, and communities about the dangers of hate and the 
importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give 
educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate 
historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that 
the Holocaust can teach us today.
  However, while much growth and healing have come about in the 66 
years since Auschwitz was liberated, there remains a significant 
barrier that we must break through. After 6 decades, many of our youth 
may view the Holocaust as an event that occurred in the distant past. 
Only by proper acknowledgement of the incredible loss of life during 
the Holocaust, will we ever be able to ensure that such an event never 
happens again.
  It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti-
Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination. Funding accurate 
educational programs on the Holocaust is a step toward winning this 
battle.
  So as America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish 
faith in condemning anti-Semitism, let us do everything in our power to 
end discrimination and educate future generations about the danger of 
hatred and bigotry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 902. A bill to amend part D of title V of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide grants for the repair, 
renovation, and construction of elementary and secondary schools; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, safe, modern, healthy school buildings are 
essential to creating an environment where students can reach their 
full academic potential. Today, too many students in the United States, 
particularly those most at risk of being left behind, attend school in 
facilities that are old, overcrowded and run-down. The 2009 
Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers gives public schools a D grade. Too many of our Nation's 
schools were built over a half century ago, and are not equipped to 
meet the needs of 21st Century students and teachers. School-facility 
needs are impacting the preparedness of our children for work in 
critical fields, such as mathematics and science.
  The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2000 that 
the Nation's elementary and secondary

[[Page S2741]]

schools required approximately $127 billion to repair or upgrade their 
facilities. A 2008 State-by-State analysis by the American Federation 
of Teachers found that the Nation's school infrastructure needs total 
an estimated $255 billion. While the condition of public school 
buildings is primarily a state and local responsibility, the Federal 
Government can and should help, especially when it comes to closing 
disparities between affluent and disadvantaged school districts. The 
current economic environment makes it exceedingly difficult for States 
and school districts to renovate and in some cases build new schools to 
meet this important need.
  That is why I am pleased to introduce the School Building Fairness 
Act. This legislation provides $1 billion to States for competitive 
matching grants to local educational agencies; LEAs, for school repair, 
renovation, and construction. In awarding the grants, States must 
consider poverty, condition of school facilities, capacity, adherence 
to green building standards, and likelihood of maintenance. I have seen 
this work in Iowa with the success of the Iowa Demonstration 
Construction Grant Program, which provided over $121 million in federal 
assistance to over 300 school districts and leveraged more than $600 
million of additional local funding through the matching requirement. I 
am sure that it will work across the rest of the country. 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. 902

       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 ``School Building Fairness Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Providing safe, healthy, and up-to-date public 
     elementary and secondary school facilities is a crucial 
     component of improving student academic performance and 
     retaining high-quality, committed educators.
       (2) The 2009 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the 
     American Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a D 
     grade.
       (3) The National Center for Education Statistics, in 2000, 
     reported that the Nation's elementary and secondary schools 
     required approximately $127,000,000,000 to repair or upgrade 
     facilities.
       (4) A State-by-State analysis by the American Federation of 
     Teachers in 2008 concluded that the Nation's school 
     infrastructure needs an estimated $254,600,000,000.
       (5) The Department of Education documented in 1998 that the 
     average age of a public elementary or secondary school 
     building was estimated at 42 years old, past the age when 
     schools tend to deteriorate rapidly.
       (6) School districts spent more than $304,000,000,000 for 
     public school construction contracts from 1995 through 2004, 
     according to data collected by McGraw-Hill Construction.
       (7) According to a 2006 report by the Building Educational 
     Success Together coalition, the per-student investment made 
     in the most affluent school districts to repair or construct 
     schools was nearly double the amount of the per-student 
     investment made in the most disadvantaged school districts.
       (8) Since 1998, the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant 
     Program has provided $121,000,000 in Federal assistance to 
     over 300 school districts for school repair and construction. 
     That Federal investment in school repair and construction has 
     leveraged more than $600,000,000 of additional local funding 
     through a match required by the State government.
       (9) Green schools use an average of 33 percent less energy 
     than conventionally built schools, and generate financial 
     savings of about $70 per square foot, according to the 2006 
     report ``Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits''.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR SCHOOL REPAIR, RENOVATION, AND 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       Part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7241 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                    ``Subpart 22--School Facilities

     ``SEC. 5621. GRANTS FOR SCHOOL REPAIR, RENOVATION, AND 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 5210.
       ``(2) CHPS criteria.--The term `CHPS Criteria' means the 
     green building rating criteria developed by the Collaborative 
     for High Performance Schools.
       ``(3) Early learning facility.--The term `early learning 
     facility' means a public facility that--
       ``(A) serves children who are not yet in kindergarten; and
       ``(B) is under the jurisdiction of a local educational 
     agency.
       ``(4) Energy star.--The term `Energy Star' means the Energy 
     Star program of the Department of Energy and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(5) Green globes.--The term `Green Globes' means the 
     Green Building Initiative environmental design and rating 
     system.
       ``(6) High-need local educational agency.--The term `high-
     need local educational agency' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 2102(3)(A).
       ``(7) LEED green building rating system.--The term `LEED 
     Green Building Rating System' means the United States Green 
     Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
     Design green building rating system.
       ``(8) Public school facility.--The term `public school 
     facility' means a public elementary or secondary school 
     facility, including a public charter school facility or an 
     existing facility planned for adaptive reuse as a public 
     charter school facility.
       ``(9) Rural local educational agency.--The term `rural 
     local educational agency' means a local educational agency 
     that meets the eligibility requirements under--
       ``(A) section 6211(b) for participation in the program 
     described in subpart 1 of part B of title VI; or
       ``(B) section 6221(b) for participation in the program 
     described in subpart 2 of part B of title VI.
       ``(10) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     states of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(b) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Reservations.--From the funds appropriated under 
     subsection (i) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 
     1 percent to provide assistance to the outlying areas and for 
     payments to the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
     assistance to schools funded by the Bureau of Indian 
     Education. Funds allocated under this paragraph shall be 
     reserved by the Secretary for distribution among the outlying 
     areas and the Secretary of the Interior on the basis of their 
     relative need for public elementary school and secondary 
     school repair, renovation, and construction, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) Allocation to state educational agencies.--From the 
     funds appropriated under subsection (i) for a fiscal year 
     that are not reserved under paragraph (1) for the fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall allocate to each State educational 
     agency serving a State an amount that bears the same relation 
     to the funds as the amount the State received under part A of 
     title I for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for 
     which the determination is made bears to the amount all 
     States received under such part for such preceding fiscal 
     year, except that no such State educational agency shall 
     receive less than 0.5 percent of the amount allocated under 
     this subsection.
       ``(c) Within-State Distributions.--
       ``(1) Administrative and other costs.--
       ``(A) State educational agency administration and other 
     costs.--Except as provided in subparagraph (D), each State 
     educational agency may reserve not more than 1 percent of the 
     State educational agency's allocation under subsection (b) 
     for the purposes of administering the distribution of grants 
     under this subsection and awarding grants under subparagraph 
     (C)(v).
       ``(B) Required uses.--The State educational agency shall 
     use a portion of the funds reserved under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) to provide technical assistance to local educational 
     agencies; and
       ``(ii) to establish or support a State-level database of 
     public school facility inventory, condition, design, and 
     utilization.
       ``(C) Permissible uses.--The State educational agency may 
     use a portion of the funds reserved under subparagraph (A) 
     for--
       ``(i) developing a statewide public school educational 
     facility master plan;
       ``(ii) developing policies, procedures, and standards for 
     high-quality, energy efficient public school facilities;
       ``(iii) supporting interagency collaboration that will lead 
     to broad community use of public school facilities, and 
     school-based services for students served by high-need local 
     educational agencies or rural local educational agencies;
       ``(iv) helping to defray the cost of issuing State bonds to 
     finance public elementary school and secondary school repair, 
     renovation, and construction; and
       ``(v) awarding grants to State-operated or State-supported 
     schools, such as a State school for the deaf or for the 
     blind, to enable such schools to carry out school repair, 
     renovation, and construction activities in accordance with 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) State entity administration and other costs.--If the 
     State educational agency transfers funds to a State entity 
     described in paragraph (2)(A), the State educational agency 
     shall transfer to such State entity not less than 75 percent 
     of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A) for the purpose 
     of carrying out the activities described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(2) Distribution of competitive school repair, 
     renovation, and construction grants to local educational 
     agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the funds allocated to a State 
     educational agency under subsection (b) that are not reserved 
     under paragraph (1), the State educational agency shall 
     distribute 100 percent of such funds to local educational 
     agencies or, if the State educational agency is not 
     responsible for the financing of public

[[Page S2742]]

     school facilities, the State educational agency shall 
     transfer such funds to the State entity responsible for the 
     financing of public school facilities (referred to in this 
     section as the `State entity') for distribution by such State 
     entity to local educational agencies in accordance with this 
     paragraph, to be used, consistent with subsection (d), for 
     public elementary school or secondary school repair, 
     renovation, and construction.
       ``(B) Competitive grants to local educational agencies.--
     The State educational agency or State entity shall carry out 
     a program to award grants, on a competitive basis, to local 
     educational agencies for public elementary school or 
     secondary school repair, renovation, and construction. Of the 
     total amount available for distribution to local educational 
     agencies under this paragraph, the State educational agency 
     or State entity, shall, in carrying out the grant 
     competition--
       ``(i) award to high-need local educational agencies, in the 
     aggregate, not less than an amount which bears the same 
     relationship to such total amount as the aggregate amount 
     such high-need local educational agencies received under part 
     A of title I for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     for which the determination is made bears to the aggregate 
     amount received for such preceding fiscal year under such 
     part by all local educational agencies in the State;
       ``(ii) award to rural local educational agencies in the 
     State, in the aggregate, not less than an amount which bears 
     the same relationship to such total amount as the aggregate 
     amount such rural local educational agencies received under 
     part A of title I for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the determination is made bears to the 
     aggregate amount received for such preceding fiscal year 
     under such part by all local educational agencies in the 
     State; and
       ``(iii) award the remaining funds to local educational 
     agencies in the State that did not receive a grant award 
     under clause (i) or (ii), including to high-need local 
     educational agencies and rural local educational agencies 
     that did not receive a grant award under clause (i) or (ii).
       ``(C) Criteria for awarding grants.--In awarding 
     competitive grants under this paragraph, a State educational 
     agency or State entity shall take into account the following 
     criteria:
       ``(i) Percentage of poor children.--The percentage of 
     children served by the local educational agency who are 
     between 5 to 17 years of age, inclusive, and who are from 
     families with incomes below the poverty line.
       ``(ii) Need for school repair, renovation, and 
     construction.--The need of a local educational agency for 
     school repair, renovation, and construction, as demonstrated 
     by the condition of the public school facilities of the local 
     educational agency or the local educational agency's need for 
     such facilities.
       ``(iii) Green schools.--The extent to which a local 
     educational agency will make use, in the repair, renovation, 
     or construction to be undertaken, of green practices that are 
     certified, verified, or consistent with any applicable 
     provisions of--

       ``(I) the LEED Green Building Rating System;
       ``(II) Energy Star;
       ``(III) the CHPS Criteria;
       ``(IV) Green Globes; or
       ``(V) an equivalent program adopted by the State or another 
     jurisdiction with authority over the local educational 
     agency.

       ``(iv) Fiscal capacity.--The fiscal capacity of a local 
     educational agency to meet the needs of the local educational 
     agency for repair, renovation, and construction of public 
     school facilities without assistance under this section, 
     including the ability of the local educational agency to 
     raise funds through the use of local bonding capacity and 
     otherwise.
       ``(v) Likelihood of maintaining the facility.--The 
     likelihood that a local educational agency will maintain, in 
     good condition, any public school facility whose repair, 
     renovation, or construction is assisted under this section.
       ``(vi) Charter school equitable access to funding.--In the 
     case of a local educational agency that proposes to fund a 
     repair, renovation, or construction project for a public 
     charter school, the extent to which the public charter school 
     lacks access to funding for school repair, renovation, and 
     construction through the financing methods available to other 
     public schools or local educational agencies in the State.
       ``(D) Matching requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State educational agency or State 
     entity shall require local educational agencies to match 
     funds awarded under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Match amount.--The amount of a match described in 
     clause (i) may be established by using a sliding scale that 
     takes into account the relative poverty of the population 
     served by the local educational agency.
       ``(d) Rules Applicable to School Repair, Renovation, and 
     Construction.--With respect to funds made available under 
     this section that are used for school repair, renovation, and 
     construction, the following rules shall apply:
       ``(1) Permissible uses of funds.--School repair, 
     renovation, and construction shall be limited to 1 or more of 
     the following:
       ``(A) Upgrades, repair, construction, or replacement of 
     public elementary school or secondary school building systems 
     or components to improve the quality of education and ensure 
     the health and safety of students and staff, including--
       ``(i) repairing, replacing, or constructing early learning 
     facilities at public elementary schools (including renovation 
     of existing facilities to serve children under 5 years of 
     age);
       ``(ii) repairing, replacing, or installing roofs, windows, 
     doors, electrical wiring, plumbing systems, or sewage 
     systems;
       ``(iii) repairing, replacing, or installing heating, 
     ventilation, or air conditioning systems (including 
     insulation); and
       ``(iv) bringing such public schools into compliance with 
     fire and safety codes.
       ``(B) Public school facilities modifications necessary to 
     render public school facilities accessible in order to comply 
     with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12101 et seq.) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
       ``(C) Improvements to the environmental conditions of 
     public elementary school or secondary school sites, including 
     asbestos abatement or removal, and the reduction or 
     elimination of human exposure to lead-based paint, mold, or 
     mildew.
       ``(D) Measures designed to reduce or eliminate human 
     exposure to classroom noise and environmental noise 
     pollution.
       ``(E) Modifications necessary to reduce the consumption of 
     electricity, natural gas, oil, water, coal, or land.
       ``(F) Upgrades or installations of educational technology 
     infrastructure to ensure that students have access to up-to-
     date educational technology.
       ``(G) Measures that will broaden or improve the use of 
     public elementary school or secondary school buildings and 
     grounds by the community in order to improve educational 
     outcomes.
       ``(2) Impermissible uses of funds.--No funds received under 
     this section may be used for--
       ``(A) payment of maintenance costs in connection with any 
     projects constructed in whole or part with Federal funds 
     provided under this section;
       ``(B) purchase or upgrade of vehicles;
       ``(C) improvement or construction of stand-alone facilities 
     whose purpose is not the education of children, including 
     central office administration or operations or logistical 
     support facilities;
       ``(D) purchase of information technology hardware, 
     including computers, monitors, or printers;
       ``(E) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for 
     athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which 
     admission is charged to the general public; or
       ``(F) purchase of carbon offsets.
       ``(3) Supplement, not supplant.--A local educational agency 
     or State-operated or State-supported school shall use Federal 
     funds subject to this subsection only to supplement the 
     amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal 
     funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for school 
     repair, renovation, and construction.
       ``(e) Qualified Bidders; Competition.--Each local 
     educational agency that receives funds under subsection 
     (c)(2) shall ensure that, if the local educational agency 
     carries out repair, renovation, or construction through a 
     contract, any such contract process ensures the maximum 
     number of qualified bidders, including small, minority, and 
     women-owned businesses, through full and open competition.
       ``(f) Public Comment.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving funds under subsection (c)(2)--
       ``(1) shall provide an opportunity for public comment, and 
     ensure that parents, educators, and all other interested 
     members of the community in which the school to be assisted 
     is located have the opportunity to consult, on the use of the 
     funds received under such subsection;
       ``(2) shall provide the public with adequate and efficient 
     notice of the opportunity described in paragraph (1) in a 
     widely read and distributed medium; and
       ``(3) shall provide the opportunity described in paragraph 
     (1) in accordance with any applicable State and local law 
     specifying how the comments may be received and how the 
     comments may be reviewed by any member of the public.
       ``(g) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Local reporting.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving funds under subsection (c)(2) shall submit a report 
     to the State educational agency, at such time as the State 
     educational agency may require, describing the use of such 
     funds for school repair, renovation, and construction.
       ``(2) State reporting.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving funds under subsection (b) shall submit to the 
     Secretary, at such time as the Secretary may require, a 
     report on the use of funds received under this section and 
     made available to local educational agencies (and, if 
     applicable, to State-operated or State-sponsored schools) for 
     school repair, renovation, and construction.
       ``(h) Reallocation.--If a State educational agency does not 
     apply for an allocation of funds under subsection (b) for a 
     fiscal year, or does not use the State educational agency's 
     entire allocation for such fiscal year, then the Secretary 
     may reallocate the amount of the State educational agency's 
     allocation (or the remainder thereof, as the case may be) for 
     such fiscal year to the remaining State educational agencies 
     in accordance with subsection (b).

[[Page S2743]]

       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $1,000,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2012, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016.

     ``SEC. 5622. NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS STUDY.

       ``(a) In General.--The National Center for Education 
     Statistics shall conduct a study of the condition of public 
     school facilities in the United States.
       ``(b) Estimates and Measures.--In conducting the study, the 
     National Center for Education Statistics shall--
       ``(1) estimate the costs needed to repair and renovate all 
     public elementary schools and secondary schools in the United 
     States to good overall condition; and
       ``(2) measure recent expenditures of Federal, State, local, 
     and private funds for public elementary school and secondary 
     school repair, renovation, and construction costs in the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Analysis.--In conducting the study, the National 
     Center for Education Statistics shall examine trends in 
     expenditures of Federal, State, local, and private funds 
     since fiscal year 2001 for repair, renovation, and 
     construction activities for public elementary schools and 
     secondary schools in the United States, including examining 
     the differences between the types of schools assisted, and 
     the types of repair, renovation, and construction activities 
     conducted, with those expenditures.
       ``(d) Report.--The National Center for Education Statistics 
     shall prepare and submit to Congress a report containing the 
     results of the study.

     ``SEC. 5623. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR EDUCATIONAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--From the funds appropriated under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall award a grant or contract 
     to maintain a clearinghouse that will collect and disseminate 
     information on effective, best educational practices, and the 
     latest research, regarding the planning, design, financing, 
     construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of 
     safe, healthy, high-performance school facilities for nursery 
     and pre-kindergarten, kindergarten through grade 12, and 
     higher education.
       ``(b) Duration.--The grant or contract under subsection (a) 
     shall be awarded for a period of 5 years.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 904. A bill to improve jobs, opportunity, benefits, and services 
for unemployed Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of a bill that, if enacted, would empower the States to more wisely 
spend the $31 billion in unemployment funds that have been allocated to 
them for the remainder of this year. This bill will allow states to 
avoid job-killing unemployment tax hikes while strengthening the safety 
net program for unemployed workers. I am honored to introduce this 
legislation simultaneously with a bill being introduced today in the 
House by The Honorable Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee.
  The Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Services Act of 2011, or JOBS Act 
for short, is just that. A pro jobs bill that goes to the heart of what 
unemployment benefits are meant to be: not a permanent welfare payment, 
but a bridge to help unemployed workers until they can find a new job. 
A hand up, not a hand out. This bill is sorely needed. Since the 
recession began, 33 States have borrowed $48 billion in Federal funds 
to pay for unemployment benefits. These loans, if gone unpaid, will 
result in increased taxes on employers and job creators. Three States 
already have been forced to do so, and experts predict that 21 
additional States will be required to raise taxes on jobs this year if 
nothing is done.
  The JOBS Act allows states the flexibility to manage their 
unemployment funds to pay benefits, reduce their borrowings, or 
establish programs to help unemployed workers get jobs. The States can 
decide for themselves where their greatest needs lie. Under current 
law, States don't have the flexibility they need to adapt. The Federal 
Government pays for up to 73 weeks of unemployment, an all-time record. 
But not every state needs to spend the money the way Washington 
dictates. For example, North Dakota has only a 3.6 percent rate of 
unemployment, but the unemployed can collect up to 34 weeks of 
unemployment paid for with Federal funds, in addition to the normal 26 
weeks under pre-recession law. This bill would allow States to more 
wisely direct those Federal funds.
  How does the bill work? The $31 billion in Federal funds already 
allocated to the States will be advanced to them and will remain 
available for unemployment benefits or, if the State chooses, some or 
all can be used to repay their loans in order to avoid raising taxes, 
or enact programs that will lead to the rapid reemployment of 
unemployed workers. What this bill will not do is add any new Federal 
spending or reduce the amount of Federal funds a State is already 
scheduled to receive for unemployment insurance or mandate that States 
change the way they use those funds. It is up to the States to decide 
what is best for them and their citizens based on local conditions. 
This bill truly is a ``win, win'' for States, workers and the 
businesses struggling to expand and hire.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 907. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for business meals 
and entertainment; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
restore the 80 percent tax deduction for business meals and 
entertainment expenses.
  By way of background, business meals previously were fully 
deductible. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax deduction 
for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 percent. In 
1993, the deduction was further reduced to its current level of 50 
percent. The business meal deduction should be reformed to better 
reflect the basic principle that business expenses should be fully 
deductible. Increasing the limitation to 80 percent would better align 
the provision with these objectives.
  More importantly, at a time when the Nation is getting back on 
stronger economic footing, the legislation is particularly critical 
especially for the small businesses and self-employed individuals that 
depend so heavily on the business meal to conduct business. Small 
companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct 
meetings or close deals. Meals are their best, and sometimes only, 
marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment 
deduction would have a significant impact on a small business's bottom 
line.
  In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant. 
Research has shown that increasing the business meal deduction to 80 
percent would increase business meal sales by over $7 billion and 
increase the number of jobs by over 200,000. Moreover, restaurants 
service more than 130 million guests every day. Every dollar spent 
dining out generates $2.05 in business to other industries, totaling 
more than $1.7 trillion in overall economic impact.
  The impact of the restaurant industry on the Nation's economy is 
considerable and felt in every State. Accompanying my statement is the 
National Restaurant Association's, NRA's, State-by-State chart 
reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business 
meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 907

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND 
                   ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
     entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``80 percent''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 274(n) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``Only 50 Percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2011.

[[Page S2744]]


 ESTIMATED IMPACT OF INCREASING BUSINESS MEAL DEDUCTIBILITY FROM 50% TO
                                   80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                                     Increase in     Total    employment
                                    business meal   economic   impact in
               State                spending  50%  impact in   the State
                                        to 80%     the State  (number of
                                    deductibility      (in       jobs
                                    (in millions)  millions)   created)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................         $92         $186       2,952
Alaska............................          19           33         452
Arizona...........................         151          300       3,984
Arkansas..........................          50          101       1,689
California........................         967        2,267      26,315
Colorado..........................         136          313       3,943
Connecticut.......................          88          165       2,019
Delaware..........................          24           43         499
District of Columbia..............          39           53         313
Florida...........................         472          957      12,522
Georgia...........................         230          532       6,732
Hawaii............................          54          104       1,402
Idaho.............................          28           55         933
Illinois..........................         313          744       8,786
Indiana...........................         135          278       4,272
Iowa..............................          51          102       1,669
Kansas............................          56          112       1,606
Kentucky..........................          90          183       2,618
Louisiana.........................          98          193       2,888
Maine.............................          29           55         848
Maryland..........................         148          307       3,594
Massachusetts.....................         193          388       4,649
Michigan..........................         191          380       5,872
Minnesota.........................         119          272       3,714
Mississippi.......................          50           95       1,630
Missouri..........................         134          298       4,084
Montana...........................          21           40         710
Nebraska..........................          35           73       1,190
Nevada............................          83          147       1,974
New Hampshire.....................          34           63         784
New Jersey........................         205          442       4,993
New Mexico........................          45           82       1,331
New York..........................         482          954      11,251
North Carolina....................         222          467       6,849
North Dakota......................          12           22         373
Ohio..............................         252          540       8,081
Oklahoma..........................          74          157       2,491
Oregon............................          94          194       2,611
Pennsylvania......................         258          582       7,688
Rhode Island......................          29           53         706
South Carolina....................         108          221       3,329
South Dakota......................          15           30         509
Tennessee.........................         143          322       4,191
Texas.............................         576        1,405      17,036
Utah..............................          50          113       1,682
Vermont...........................          13           22         335
Virginia..........................         200          423       5,312
Washington........................         157          340       4,160
West Virginia.....................          32           54         950
Wisconsin.........................         107          224       3,629
Wyoming...........................          12           19         346
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Restaurant Association estimates, 2011

                               ______
                                 ___
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 908. A bill to provide for the addition of certain real property 
to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that 
will address the cumbersome and time consuming process under existing 
law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will 
streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribe of 
Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is not 
working, and I believe there are changes that need to be revived in the 
existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this 
effort.
  The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the 
Executive Order on November 9, 1955 was diminished and then eliminated 
by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal 
members and tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz 
community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 
stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition, and since 
then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This 
legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust 
process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome the 
chronic Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, delay in processing 
applications. Instead of having two processes to bring each piece of 
former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one 
to bring the land into trust, and another, to make it reservation land, 
allows the tribe to combine the process.
  In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, the 
tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, 
virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today 
is considered by BIA pursuant to ``off reservation'' procedures. ``Off 
reservation'' requests would mean that the ``. . . secretary gives 
greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits . 
. .''
  By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within 
the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the 
Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital 
tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs--
for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes 
the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 
1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, 
to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of 
individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and 
restoring some of the Tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe 
to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian 
tribes within their reservations.
  This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self-
determination for the confederated tribe of Siletz Indians and its 
members. Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, 
whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations, this 
bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources 
associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump 
through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and 
resources.
  As a result of the great working relationships, the Siletz Tribe has 
approached all six involved counties, and obtained their support. This 
legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial 
partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local 
counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas.
  That is why I am introducing--the process has not sped up and we 
recognize the need for more action. It's always great to see Tribes and 
local counties work together to come up with proactive, inventive 
solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic 
conditions.
  I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and 
tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They 
represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.

                          ____________________