Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)

[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.

____________________