[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 65 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2932-S2956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
        Blunt, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Blumenthal, 
        and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 958. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
the program of payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate 
medical education programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today Senator Isakson and I are introducing 
the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011. Since 
its creation in 1999, this program has provided freestanding children's 
hospitals with funding to support the training of medical residents. 
While most hospitals receive support through the Medicare program, 
freestanding children's hospitals are not eligible for that funding. 
That is why reauthorizing this program is vital.
  Prior to the enactment of CHGME, the number of residents in 
children's hospitals' residency programs had declined over 13 percent. 
The enactment of CHGME has enabled children's hospitals to reverse this 
trend and to increase their training by 35 percent.
  In Pennsylvania, we have three hospitals who participate in this 
important program. This is a critical investment in our country's 
medical future and guarantees that children will have continuing access 
to the care they need across provider settings. Children are not little 
adults. We must continue to ensure we have the specialized workforce to 
care for them.
  Perhaps the benefit of this program is best told in the words of the 
residents themselves. Gabriela Marein-Efron is a resident at the 
Children's

[[Page S2933]]

Hospital of Philadelphia. She shared this story with us.
  ``One of the most powerful experiences I've had during my training 
has been in my primary care continuity clinic. Many of my patients are 
now almost 3 years old, and I've been taking care of them since they 
were newborns. My connection to these families, who are often 
especially vulnerable because of barriers such as poverty or language 
differences has influenced my ultimate career choice. In a few months 
I'll become an Attending Physician at this urban clinic and continue to 
take care of these underserved families and serve as their medical home 
full-time.''
  Chief Resident Dustin Haferbecker had an equally meaningful 
experience. ``My training at CHOP allowed me the unique opportunity to 
discover a need in the community, and ultimately help meet that need. 
During residency, I was exposed to extreme lack of adequate health care 
that was available to the large number of refugees that continue to 
pour into the city, brought here by our government. Our CHGME funded 
curriculum made it possible for myself and a group of residents to 
investigate this problem, identify support from within the institution, 
and establish a clinic dedicated to meeting their unique health care 
needs. A family of three children that have spent their life a refugee 
camp in Nepal, are now being treated for their vitamin D deficiency and 
newly discovered latent tuberculosis.''
  Pamela Puthoor is a resident at the Children's Hospital of 
Pittsburgh. ``I had had almost zero exposure to pediatric specialists 
before coming to Children's,'' she says. ``I knew that Children's 
Hospital offered a rigorous primary care program and the depth and 
breadth of specialty care, so I would be able to make an educated 
choice. I have been able to learn from leaders in their fields, and 
from that I have decided to go into pediatric gastroenterology.'' Dr. 
Puthoor says that Children's also encouraged her to pursue her interest 
in public health policy. ``Children's attracts passionate, altruistic 
people devoted to taking care of kids. The support and encouragement we 
receive is extraordinary,'' she says.
  These residents and the stories they share are a testament of why we 
must continue this program.
  I want to thank Senator Isakson for leading this legislation with me. 
I also want to thank Senators Sherrod Brown, Roy Blunt, John Kerry, 
Scott Brown, Richard Blumenthal and Pat Roberts for signing on as 
original cosponsors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
get this legislation passed this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 960. A bill to provide for a study on issues relating to access to 
intravenous immune globulin (IVG) for Medicare beneficiaries in all 
care settings and a demonstration project to examine the benefits of 
providing coverage and payment for items and services necessary to 
administer IVG in the home; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today along with Senator Alexander I am 
introducing the Medicare IVIG Access Act to help patients with primary 
immunodeficiency diseases, PIDD, who currently face a number of health 
challenges. Today, Medicare beneficiaries with PIDD already have a Part 
B benefit for home-based intravenous immune globulin, IVIG, treatment. 
Unfortunately a gap in coverage exists so no payments are available for 
the items and services necessary to administer the treatment.
  Treatment in the home is more cost effective and also protects the 
patient from the risk of exposure to additional illnesses in other 
health care settings. This is of particular concern to PIDD patients, 
since they already have weakened immune systems. A 2007 report from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Office of Inspector 
General and the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 
found that problems with payment exist, namely the absence of coverage 
for required items and services associated with IVIG home infusion.
  That is why I have worked with my colleague Senator Alexander to 
introduce the Medicare IVIG Access Act to create a 3-year demonstration 
project to provide for and evaluate the benefits of providing a payment 
for items and services necessary to administer IVIG in the home. The 
bill includes a study to explore issues surrounding IVIG treatment, 
including the impact of the demonstration project on access to care, 
and an analysis of the appropriateness of new payment methodology for 
IVIG treatment in all settings.
  This legislation is supported by a number of organizations including 
the Immune Deficiency Foundation and the Clinical Immunology Society. I 
ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Begich):
  S. 961. A bill to create the income security conditions and family 
supports needed to ensure permanency for the Nation's unaccompanied 
youth, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Reconnecting 
Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act to improve training, educational 
opportunities, and permanency planning for older foster youth and 
reduce homelessness among our young people.
  This year approximately 3.5 million people, including 1.5 million 
children in the United States will experience homelessness at some 
point. That is one out of every 50 kids. For children who were in the 
foster system the chances of becoming homeless are even greater. Every 
year approximately 30,000 children age out of the foster care system--
many with no family and nowhere to go. These children were placed in 
the foster system at absolutely no fault of their own and too often 
they leave the system without a place to call home.
  We have a responsibility to take care of our young people and make 
sure families have the resources they need to be able to keep a roof 
over their heads. I developed this legislation after hearing troubling 
stories from teenagers in Massachusetts. For example, I heard from one 
15-year-old who has been in multiple foster care placements and is 
expected to eventually age out of the system. He told me ``. . . I feel 
the age 18 is too young, some of us don't always have somewhere to go . 
. . if this bill gets passed it will greatly help a lot of people in so 
many different ways . . . I thank you for giving us the opportunity to 
help us better ourselves and letting us know that we are heard in this 
world and someone cares deeply and truly about us.'' That is why I am 
introducing the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act. This 
legislation will help ensure that regardless of where in the country a 
foster child lives, they will not face the prospect of becoming a 
homeless teenager by allowing them to remain in care until their 21st 
birthday and improving permanency planning.
  It provides support for States to work together to decrease barriers 
that prohibit cooperation across State lines for placing foster 
children in loving homes outside their state of residence. It provides 
support for programs that improve family relationships and reduce 
homelessness among youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 
transgender. This legislation ensures that children in foster care 
receive Social Security benefits they qualify for due to the death of a 
parent or a disability.
  The bill makes significant improvements to the Temporary Assistance 
to Needy Families, TANF, program such as enhancing efforts to connect 
families with education, training and housing resources. It also 
increases the time frame for young parents to qualify for TANF benefits 
if they are in an education or training program. Finally, it provides 
more flexibility for states to work with young families to become 
compliant with TANF requirements.
  This legislation is supported by over 40 organizations, including the 
American Bar Association, the National Coalition for the Homeless, 
National Network for Youth, and Voice for Adoption. I thank my 
colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Begich for their support and co-
sponsorship of this bill. It is my hope that we can move forward in a 
bipartisan manner. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. DeMint,

[[Page S2934]]

        Mr. Paul, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Isakson, Mr. 
        Risch, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Lee, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, 
        Mr. Coburn, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
        Johanns, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, 
        Mr. Burr, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Heller, Mr. McCain, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
        Rubio, and Mr. Corker):
  S. 964. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify 
the applicability of such Act with respect to States that have right to 
work laws in effect; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today 
to introduce, on behalf of 34 Senators, the Job Protection Act.
  The Job Protection Act is occasioned by a decision by the acting 
general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board that filed a 
complaint to stop the Boeing Company from building airplanes at a 
nonunion plant in South Carolina, suggesting that a unionized American 
company cannot expand its operations in 1 of 22 States with a right-to-
work law.
  The right-to-work law protects workers' rights to join or not join a 
union. For example, in Tennessee we are a right-to-work State. In the 
case of a Saturn employee, where United Auto Workers is the bargaining 
agent, a worker doesn't have to join the union or pay dues, but he has 
to accept the UAW as his bargaining agent.
  At the Nissan plant a few miles away from the General Motors plant, 
workers have three times elected not to have a union as their 
bargaining agent. That is what a right-to-work State is. There are 22 
of them. The State of New Hampshire is in the process of deciding 
whether to become the 23rd. Their legislature is of one view, and their 
Governor is of the other view.
  The Job Protection Act, which I introduce today on behalf of 34 
Senators, would preserve the Federal law's current protection of State 
right-to-work laws in the National Labor Relations Act and provide 
necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from moving forward in their case 
against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other 
companies.
  Specifically, the Job Protection Act would, first, explicitly clarify 
that the board cannot order an employer to relocate jobs from one 
location to another; two, it guarantees an employer the right to decide 
where to do business within the United States; and, three, it protects 
an employer's free speech regarding the costs associated with having a 
unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as 
evidence in an anti-union discrimination suit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the names of the 34 Senators who are original cosponsors of the Job 
Protection Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Job Protection Act--Cosponsor List

       Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, 
     John Cornyn, Richard Lugar, Richard Shelby, Johnny Isakson, 
     James Risch, John Boozman, Mike Lee, Jon Kyl, David Vitter, 
     Thad Cochran, Tom Coburn, Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey 
     Hutchison.
       John Hoeven, Mike Johanns, Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, 
     John Barrasso, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, 
     Orrin Hatch, Mike Enzi, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Inhofe, Dean 
     Heller, John McCain, Roger Wicker, Marco Rubio, Bob Corker.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record at the end of my remarks two articles by the Wall Street 
Journal, the first written by me on April 29 and the second written by 
the president of the Boeing Company, Jim McNerney, who is also chairman 
of President Obama's Export Council.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, now to make a few remarks about the 
actions that have caused this.
  I just left a hearing in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee on the middle class. One of the witnesses was the general 
counsel of the Boeing Company. As might be expected, given the 
notoriety of this case and the breathtaking scope of it, he got a lot 
of questions.
  Let me first say why there is such a breathtaking scope here. Up 
until the filing of the complaint, one would assume that a 
manufacturing company, such as Boeing or a smaller company that wanted 
to open a new plant to create new jobs could make its own decision 
about where to do that. Then in doing so, it could take into account 
such factors as the cost of labor. It could take into account such 
factors as the labor relations within a State, as well as the 
geographical location of the State and many other factors.
  The reason the decision by the acting general counsel has attracted 
so much attention is it basically says--or at least it suggests--to any 
company manufacturing a product in a State which is not a right-to-work 
State, such as Washington, that you better think twice before you open 
a new production line in one of the right-to-work States.
  Let me talk for a moment about why that has an impact on the middle 
class in America. Thirty years ago I was Governor of Tennessee. We were 
the third poorest State. My goal was to raise family incomes and to 
create an environment in which they could be raised. I was a young 
Governor, but I knew enough to know the government did not raise the 
incomes but it might create a good environment for that to happen.
  I went to my first White House dinner with the President of the 
United States. The President was then Jimmy Carter. The President said 
to us Governors at a very nice dinner--just the Governors and their 
spouses and the President and Mrs. Carter: Governors, go to Japan. 
Persuade them to make in the United States what they sell in the United 
States. I remember I called Dean Rusk, who had been Secretary of State, 
and asked him to visit with me. I talked to him about how to do this.
  Off I went to Japan, which is not something I planned to do when I 
was walking across Tennessee trying to be the Governor. I met with the 
Nissan officials in Tokyo in the fall of 1979. At that time, Japanese 
companies seemed so powerful that there were books coming out saying 
they might take over the United States economy, but they were not 
making here what they sold here. They were making Nissan cars and 
trucks in Japan. They were making a decision about where to locate in 
our country. I took with me a photograph of the United States at night 
taken from a satellite. They asked: Where is Tennessee? I said: It is 
right in the middle of the lights. That reduced the shipping and 
transportation costs. Then the next decision was: Where in the center 
did they want to go? Every State north of us did not have a right-to-
work law. Tennessee and the States around us did. Nissan chose 
Tennessee, and they and the General Motors plant that later came and 
the Volkswagen plant and thousands of suppliers have helped our middle 
class raise incomes over the last 30 years. A third of our jobs are 
auto manufacturing jobs because we provided an environment in which 
automakers can compete in the world marketplace.
  Nissan said today that soon they will be making in the United States 
85 percent of what they sell in the United States, which makes them a 
very American company. That is what we want. But this decision says we 
throw a big wet blanket over all the auto suppliers and manufacturers 
who might be thinking about moving into Tennessee or opening new plants 
in Tennessee or suppliers who might be wishing to follow Boeing to 
South Carolina because it says you cannot make that decision.
  We have never had that kind of law in the United States. We have had 
a right-to-work law on the books since 1947. States have a right to 
adopt it or not to adopt it. The legislation I am offering today on 
behalf of 34 Senators does not change that, but it does preserve the 
right of States to adopt a right-to-work law, the right of employees to 
join or not to join a union, and the right of employers to make 
decisions about where to locate their plants and their ability to speak 
in public about what they are doing.
  This is a most consequential decision. It is one that deserves the 
attention of every Senator because as the Boeing chairman, who is the 
head of President Obama's Export Council,

[[Page S2935]]

wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, a union State would not be 
able to attract a manufacturer because a manufacturer might be afraid 
that any expansion could never be done in a right-to-work State. By 
simple mathematics, if Boeing, which is our largest exporter--155,000 
employees in the United States, another 15,000 around the world--has a 
disincentive or if it cannot expand a new production line in a right-
to-work State and if it might think twice about expanding in any other 
State, then where is it going to go? It is going to go to some other 
country.
  This decision by the acting general counsel of the National Labor 
Relations Board is the single most important action I have seen in 
years that would rush American jobs overseas in pursuit of an 
environment in which they can build and manufacture competitively. It 
is just the reverse of what President Carter said to the Governors 30 
years ago when he said: Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make 
here what they sell here.
  We did that. They came here. They are making 85 percent of what they 
sell here. We want Volkswagen to do that. We want General Motors to do 
that. We want Ford to do that. We want Boeing to do that. And if we say 
to them, But we are going to tell you, the Federal Government is going 
to tell you where you have to locate your plants, you are going to 
override section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which was passed in 1947 
and which has created an environment which has permitted American 
manufacturing to succeed.
  All one has to do is read David Halberstam's book ``The Reckoning'' 
in the late 1980s to see that if our entire auto industry were still 
locked in Detroit, it would not be as competitive as it is today--cars 
made in America. I know that firsthand because I saw it happen when 
Nissan came to Tennessee. They did not hire a bunch of people from 
Japan to run the plant. They went to Detroit. They got Ford executives 
who knew how to run a plant but were not allowed to by the environment 
there, and they put them at a start-from-scratch place and created the 
most efficient automobile plant in North America.
  We welcome also the General Motors plant and the United Auto Workers 
to their Spring Hill location in Tennessee. That is what a right-to-
work State is where you can choose to join a union or not to join a 
union. Both can operate. Employees make the decision.
  But when the Federal Government starts telling any company--a Boeing 
or a Boeing supplier, an auto company or an auto supplier or any 
manufacturing company--you cannot locate in a right-to-work State, they 
probably will not locate in a non-right-to-work State. Where are they 
likely to go? Mexico, Europe, Japan. Boeing sells airplanes all around 
the world. It can make airplanes all around the world. If we persist in 
policies such as this, instead of having a situation where our largest 
exporter has 170,000 employees, more than 150,000 of which are in the 
United States, we will turn that right upside down and they will be 
making 85 percent of their airplanes in the countries where they sell 
them, and the United States will have a lot fewer jobs.
  This is a consequential matter that I hope attracts Democratic as 
well as Republican support. It preserves the right-to-work law. It 
preserves the choices of employees. It preserves the decision of 
corporations to make their own decisions about where to locate. It 
would stop a Federal Government regulation which is the single most 
effective action I know about to chase American jobs overseas and lower 
family incomes.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 29, 2011]

              The White House vs. Boeing: A Tennessee Tale

                          (By Lamar Alexander)

       The National Labor Relations Board has moved to stop Boeing 
     from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South 
     Carolina, suggesting that a unionized American company cannot 
     expand its operations into one of the 22 states with right-
     to-work laws, which protect a worker's right to join or not 
     join a union. (New Hampshire's legislature has just approved 
     its becoming the 23rd.)
       This reminds me of a White House state dinner in February 
     1979, when I was governor of Tennessee. President Jimmy 
     Carter said, ``Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make 
     here what they sell here.''
       ``Make here what they sell here'' was then the union battle 
     cry, part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and 
     trucks entering the U.S. market.
       Off I flew to Tokyo to meet with Nissan executives who were 
     deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant. I 
     carried with me a photograph taken at night from a satellite 
     showing the country at night with all its lights on.
       ``Where is Tennessee?'' the executives asked. ``Right in 
     the middle of the lights,'' I answered, pointing out that 
     locating a plant in the population center reduces the cost of 
     transporting cars to customers. That center had migrated 
     south from the Midwest, where most U.S. auto plants were, to 
     Kentucky and Tennessee.
       Then the Japanese examined a second consideration: 
     Tennessee has a right-to-work law and Kentucky does not. This 
     meant that in Kentucky workers would have to join the United 
     Auto Workers union. Workers in Tennessee had a choice.
       In 1980 Nissan chose Tennessee, a state with almost no auto 
     jobs. Today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-
     third of our state's manufacturing jobs. Tennessee is the 
     home for production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-electric 
     vehicle, and the batteries that power it. Recently Nissan 
     announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the 
     U.S. will be made in the U.S.--making it one of the largest 
     ``American'' auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr. 
     Carter's request of 30 years ago.
       But now unions want to make it illegal for a company that 
     has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a 
     state with a right-to-work law. What would this mean for the 
     future of American auto jobs? Jobs would flee overseas as 
     manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to 
     make and sell cars around the world.
       It's happened before. David Halberstam's 1986 book, ``The 
     Reckoning''--about the decline of the domestic American auto 
     industry--tells the story. Halberstam quotes American Motors 
     President George Romney, who criticized the ``shared 
     monopoly'' consisting of the Big Three Detroit auto 
     manufacturers and the UAW. ``There is nothing more vulnerable 
     than entrenched success,'' Romney warned. Detroit ignored 
     upstarts like Nissan who in the 1960s began selling funny 
     little cars to American consumers. We all know what happened 
     to employment in the Big Three companies.
       Even when Detroit sought greener pastures in a right-to-
     work state, its ``partnership'' with the United Auto Workers 
     could not compete. In 1985, General Motors located its $5 
     billion Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., 40 miles from 
     Nissan, hoping side-by-side competition would help the 
     Americans beat the Japanese. After 25 years, nonunion Nissan 
     operated the most efficient auto plant in North America. The 
     Saturn/UAW partnership never made a profit. GM closed Saturn 
     last year.
       Nissan's success is one reason why Volkswagen recently 
     located in Chattanooga, and why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Kia, 
     Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and thousands of suppliers have chosen 
     southeastern right-to-work states for their plants. Under 
     right-to-work laws, employees may join unions, but mostly 
     they have declined. Three times workers at the Nissan plant 
     in Smyrna, Tenn., rejected organizing themselves like Saturn 
     employees a few miles away.
       Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create 
     private-sector jobs in this country. Giving workers the right 
     to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive 
     environment in which more manufacturers like Nissan can make 
     here 85% of what they sell here.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2011]

                  Boeing Is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union

                           (By Jim McNerney)

       Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest 
     more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. 
     Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner 
     exceeded what we could build on one production line and we 
     needed to open another.
       This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new 
     jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the 
     U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time 
     when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the 
     domestic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and make 
     it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, 
     Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state 
     burdened by double-digit unemployment--with the construction 
     phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.
       Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been 
     transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 
     1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand 
     new workers are hired and being trained to start building 
     planes in July.
       It is an American industrial success story by every 
     measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of 
     them--and soon.
       Yet the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it 
     was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims 
     we improperly transferred existing work, and that our 
     decision reflected ``animus'' and constituted ``retaliation'' 
     against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its 
     remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line 
     where we tell you to build it.

[[Page S2936]]

       The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. 
     Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist 
     principles that have sustained America's competitiveness 
     since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years 
     ago. We've made a rational, legal business decision about the 
     allocation of our capital and the placement of new work 
     within the U.S. We're confident the federal courts will 
     reject the claim, but only after a significant and 
     unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
       More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of 
     such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing 
     base and long-term job creation. The NLRB's overreach could 
     accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American 
     jobs.
       Contrary to the NLRB's claim, our decision to expand in 
     South Carolina resulted from an objective analysis of the 
     same factors we use in every site selection. We considered 
     locations in several states but narrowed the choice to either 
     North Charleston (where sections of the 787 are built 
     already) or Everett, Wash., which won the initial 787 
     assembly line in 2003.
       Our union contracts expressly permit us to locate new work 
     at our discretion. However, we viewed Everett as an 
     attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union 
     officials to see if we could make the business case work. 
     Among the considerations we sought were a long-term ``no-
     strike clause'' that would ensure production stability for 
     our customers, and a wage and benefit growth trajectory that 
     would help in our cost battle against Airbus and other state-
     sponsored competitors.
       Despite months of effort, no agreement was reached. Union 
     leaders couldn't meet expectations on our key issues, and we 
     couldn't accept their demands that we remain neutral in all 
     union-organizing campaigns and essentially guarantee to build 
     every future Boeing airplane in the Puget Sound area. In 
     October 2009, we made the Charleston selection.
       Important to our case is the basic fact that no existing 
     work is being transferred to South Carolina, and not a single 
     union member in Washington has been adversely affected by 
     this decision. In fact, we've since added more than 2,000 
     union jobs there, and the hiring continues. The 787 
     production line in Everett has a planned capacity of seven 
     airplanes per month. The line in Charleston will build three 
     additional airplanes to reach our 10-per-month capacity plan. 
     Production of the new U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker 
     will sustain and grow union jobs in Everett, too.
       Before and after the selection, we spoke openly to 
     employees and investors about our competitive realities and 
     the business considerations of the decision. The NLRB now is 
     selectively quoting and mischaracterizing those comments in 
     an attempt to bolster its case. This is a distressing signal 
     from one arm of the government when others are pushing for 
     greater openness and transparency in corporate decision 
     making.
       It is no secret that over the years Boeing and union 
     leaders have struggled to find the right way to work 
     together. I don't blame that all on the union, or all on the 
     company. Both sides are working to improve that dynamic, 
     which is also a top concern for customers. Virgin Atlantic 
     founder Richard Branson put it this way following the 2008 
     machinists' strike that shut down assembly for eight weeks: 
     ``If union leaders and management can't get their act 
     together to avoid strikes, we're not going to come back here 
     again. We're already thinking, `Would we ever risk putting 
     another order with Boeing?' It's that serious.''
       Despite the ups-and-downs, we hold no animus toward union 
     members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them 
     for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. To the 
     contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and 
     key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees 
     are represented by unions--a ratio unchanged since 2003.
       Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states 
     that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable 
     presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-
     to-work. We make decisions on work placement based on 
     business principles--not out of emotion or spite. For 
     example, last year we added new manufacturing facilities in 
     Illinois and Montana. One work force is union-represented, 
     the other is not. Both decisions made business sense.
       The world the NLRB wants to create with its complaint would 
     effectively prevent all companies from placing new plants in 
     right-to-work states if they have existing plants in 
     unionized states. But as an unintended consequence, forward-
     thinking CEOs also would be reluctant to place new plants in 
     unionized states--lest they be forever restricted from 
     placing future plants elsewhere across the country.
       U.S. tax and regulatory policies already make it more 
     attractive for many companies to build new manufacturing 
     capacity overseas. That's something the administration has 
     said it wants to change and is taking steps is to address. It 
     appears that message hasn't made it to the front offices of 
     the NLRB.

  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. 964

       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 ``Job Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION TO CERTAIN SPEECH, BUSINESS DECISIONS.

       (a) Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 8(a)(3) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is amended 
     by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That an employer's expression of any 
     views, argument, or opinion related to the costs associated 
     with collective bargaining, work stoppages, or strikes, or 
     the dissemination of such views, arguments, or opinions, 
     whether in written, printed, graphic, digital, or visual 
     form, shall not constitute or be evidence of antiunion animus 
     or unlawful motive, if such expression contains no threat of 
     reprisal or force or promise of benefit''.
       (b) Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 10 of 
     the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the period at the 
     end the following: ``: Provided further, That the Board shall 
     have no power to order any employer to relocate, shut down, 
     or transfer any existing or planned facility or work or 
     employment opportunity, or prevent any employer from making 
     such relocations, transfers, or expansions to new or existing 
     facilities in the future, or prevent any employer from 
     closing a facility, not developing a facility, or eliminating 
     any employment opportunity unless and until the employer has 
     been adjudicated finally to have unlawfully undertaken such 
     actions--
       ``(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if 
     any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected 
     employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut 
     down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
       ``(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a 
     labor organization to organize a previously unrepresented 
     workplace''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from 
     choosing where to locate, develop, or expand its business or 
     facilities, or require any employer to move, transfer, or 
     relocate any facility, production line, or employment 
     opportunity, or require that an employer cease or refrain 
     from doing so, or prevent any employer from closing a 
     facility or eliminating any employment opportunity unless the 
     employer has been adjudicated finally to have unlawfully 
     undertaken such actions--
       ``(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if 
     any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected 
     employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut 
     down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
       ``(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a 
     labor organization to organize a previously unrepresented 
     workplace.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Franken):
  S. 968. A bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and 
theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, few things are more important to the future 
of the American economy and job creation than protecting our 
intellectual property. At a time where our country is beginning to 
regain its economic footing, businesses face an additional hurdle, the 
severity of which is increasing by the day--digital theft.
  Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported 
to cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds 
of thousands of lost jobs. Further, the Institute for Policy Innovation 
estimates that copyright piracy online alone costs Federal, state and 
local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue. In today's business and 
fiscal climate, the harm that intellectual property infringement causes 
to the U.S. economy is unacceptable.
  While the growth of the digital marketplace has been extraordinary, 
and benefits businesses by enabling new opportunities to reach 
consumers, it also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement 
and counterfeiting. Internet purchases have become so commonplace that 
consumers are less wary of online shopping and therefore more easily 
victimized by online counterfeit products that may have health, safety 
or other quality concerns when they are counterfeit.
  Today, I am introducing the bipartisan PROTECT IP Act, which is based 
on last year's Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act. It 
will provide the Justice Department

[[Page S2937]]

and rights holders with important new tools to crack down on rogue 
websites dedicated to infringing activities. This legislation will 
protect the investment American companies make in developing brands and 
creating content and will protect the jobs associated with those 
investments. It will also protect American consumers, who should feel 
confident that the goods they purchase are of the type and quality they 
expect.
  Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the 
remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing 
content and products. These rogue websites are often foreign-owned and 
operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a 
U.S.-based registry or registrar. American consumers are too often 
deceived into thinking the products they are purchasing at these 
websites are legitimate because they are easily accessed through their 
home's Internet service provider, found through well known search 
engines, and are complete with corporate advertising, credit card 
acceptance, and advertising links that make them appear legitimate.
  The PROTECT IP Act authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil 
action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a 
foreign rogue website, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, 
and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the site is 
dedicated to infringing activities. The court is authorized to issue a 
cease and desist order against a rogue website. If the court issues 
that order, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order, 
with permission of the court, on specified U.S. based third-parties, 
including Internet service providers, payment processors, online 
advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties 
would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent 
access to the Internet site, in the case of an Internet service 
provider or search engine, or cease doing business with the Internet 
site, in the case of a payment processor or advertising network.
  The act authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the 
infringement from a rogue website to bring a similar action against the 
rogue site, whether domestic or foreign. If the court issues a cease 
and desist order, the rights holder is authorized to serve that order, 
if authorized by the court, on payment processors and online 
advertising networks, to cut off the financial viability of the 
criminal activity.
  The legislation will also encourage voluntary action by Internet 
partners that have credible evidence a rogue website is threatening the 
public health by trafficking in counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded 
prescription medication.
  Finally, the PROTECT IP Act will help law enforcement identify and 
prevent counterfeit products from being imported into the United States 
by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging or labels of 
suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine 
whether the shipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it 
ensures that law enforcement can share anti-circumvention devices that 
have been seized with affected parties.
  This legislation will provide law enforcement and rights holders with 
an increased ability to protect American intellectual property. This 
will benefit American consumers, American businesses, and American 
jobs. We should not expect that enactment of the legislation will 
completely solve the problem of online infringement, but it will make 
it more difficult for foreign entities to profit off American hard work 
and ingenuity. This bill targets the most egregious actors, and is an 
important first step to putting a stop to online piracy and sale of 
counterfeit goods.
  Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or 
Republican priority it is a bipartisan priority. I look forward to 
working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 968

       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 ``Preventing Real Online 
     Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual 
     Property Act of 2011'' or the ``PROTECT IP Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``domain name'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127);
       (2) the term ``domain name system server'' means a server 
     or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol 
     address associated with a domain name;
       (3) the term ``financial transaction provider'' has the 
     same meaning as in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States 
     Code;
       (4) the term ``information location tool'' has the same 
     meaning as described in subsection (d) of section 512 of 
     title 17, United States Code;
       (5) the term ``Internet advertising service'' means a 
     service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, 
     serves, inserts, verifies, or clears the placement of an 
     advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, 
     link, or placement that is rendered in viewable form for any 
     period of time on an Internet site;
       (6) the term ``Internet site'' means the collection of 
     digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to 
     digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are 
     addressed relative to a common domain name;
       (7) the term ``Internet site dedicated to infringing 
     activities'' means an Internet site that--
       (A) has no significant use other than engaging in, 
     enabling, or facilitating the--
       (i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of 
     copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete 
     form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement 
     under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
       (ii) violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States 
     Code; or
       (iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, 
     or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is 
     defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
       (B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or 
     persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or 
     circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for 
     engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities 
     described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph 
     (A);
       (8) the term ``Lanham Act'' means the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ``Trademark Act of 
     1946'' or the ``Lanham Act'');
       (9) the term ``nondomestic domain name'' means a domain 
     name for which the domain name registry that issued the 
     domain name and operates the relevant top level domain, and 
     the domain name registrar for the domain name, are not 
     located in the United States;
       (10) the term ``owner'' or ``operator'' when used in 
     connection with an Internet site shall include, respectively, 
     any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with 
     authority to operate, such Internet site; and
       (11) the term ``qualifying plaintiff'' means--
       (A) the Attorney General of the United States; or
       (B) an owner of an intellectual property right, or one 
     authorized to enforce such right, harmed by the activities of 
     an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities occurring 
     on that Internet site.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED 
                   AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.

       (a) Commencement of an Action.--
       (1) In personam.--The Attorney General may commence an in 
     personam action against--
       (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an 
     Internet site dedicated to infringing activities; or
       (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to 
     infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain 
     name.
       (2) In rem.--If through due diligence the Attorney General 
     is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or 
     (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address 
     within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney 
     General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic 
     domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing 
     activities.
       (b) Orders of the Court.--
       (1) In general.--On application of the Attorney General 
     following the commencement of an action under this section, 
     the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a 
     preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with 
     rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the 
     nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to 
     infringing activities, or against a registrant of such domain 
     name, or the owner or operator of such Internet site 
     dedicated to infringing activities, to cease and desist from 
     undertaking any further activity as an Internet site 
     dedicated to infringing activities, if--
       (A) the domain name is used within the United States to 
     access such Internet site; and
       (B) the Internet site--

[[Page S2938]]

       (i) conducts business directed to residents of the United 
     States; and
       (ii) harms holders of United States intellectual property 
     rights.
       (2) Determination by the court.--For purposes of 
     determining whether an Internet site conducts business 
     directed to residents of the United States under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i), a court may consider, among other indicia, 
     whether--
       (A) the Internet site is providing goods or services 
     described in section 2(7) to users located in the United 
     States;
       (B) there is evidence that the Internet site is not 
     intended to provide--
       (i) such goods and services to users located in the United 
     States;
       (ii) access to such goods and services to users located in 
     the United States; and
       (iii) delivery of such goods and services to users located 
     in the United States;
       (C) the Internet site has reasonable measures in place to 
     prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or 
     delivered to the United States;
       (D) the Internet site offers services obtained in the 
     United States; and
       (E) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the 
     currency of the United States.
       (c) Notice and Service of Process.--
       (1) In general.--Upon commencing an action under this 
     section, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the 
     alleged violation and intent to proceed under this Act to the 
     registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
       (A) at the postal and e-mail address appearing in the 
     applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if 
     any and to the extent such addresses are reasonably 
     available;
       (B) via the postal and e-mail address of the registrar, 
     registry, or other domain name registration authority that 
     registered or assigned the domain name, to the extent such 
     addresses are reasonably available; and
       (C) in any other such form as the court finds necessary, 
     including as may be required by Rule 4(f) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this section, 
     the actions described in this subsection shall constitute 
     service of process.
       (d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders.--
       (1) Service.--A Federal law enforcement officer, with the 
     prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court 
     order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated 
     entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof 
     of service shall be filed with the court.
       (2) Reasonable measures.--After being served with a copy of 
     an order pursuant to this subsection:
       (A) Operators.--
       (i) In general.--An operator of a nonauthoritative domain 
     name system server shall take the least burdensome 
     technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to 
     prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving 
     to that domain name's Internet protocol address, except 
     that--

       (I) such operator shall not be required--

       (aa) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to 
     modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
       (bb) to take any measures with respect to domain name 
     lookups not performed by its own domain name server or domain 
     name system servers located outside the United States; or
       (cc) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to 
     which access has been effectively disable by other means; and

       (II) nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the 
     limitation on the liability of such an operator under section 
     512 of title 17, United States Code.

       (ii) Text of notice.--The Attorney General shall prescribe 
     the text of the notice displayed to users or customers of an 
     operator taking an action pursuant to this subparagraph. Such 
     text shall specify that the action is being taken pursuant to 
     a court order obtained by the Attorney General.
       (B) Financial transaction providers.--A financial 
     transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as 
     expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, 
     or suspend its service from completing payment transactions 
     involving customers located within the United States and the 
     Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in 
     the order.
       (C) Internet advertising services.--An Internet advertising 
     service that contracts with the Internet site associated with 
     the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising 
     to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to 
     or for such site, shall take technically feasible and 
     reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed 
     to--
       (i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to 
     the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
       (ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, 
     or paid or sponsored search results, links or other 
     placements that provide access to the domain name.
       (D) Information location tools.--An information location 
     tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, 
     as expeditiously as possible, to--
       (i) remove or disable access to the Internet site 
     associated with the domain name set forth in the order; or
       (ii) not serve a hypertext link to such Internet site.
       (3) Communication with users.--Except as provided under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii), an entity taking an action described in 
     this subsection shall determine whether and how to 
     communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.
       (4) Rule of construction.--For purposes of an action 
     commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity 
     described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions 
     set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such 
     entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall 
     impose any additional obligations on, or require additional 
     actions by, such entity.
       (5) Actions pursuant to court order.--
       (A) Immunity from suit.--No cause of action shall lie in 
     any Federal or State court or administrative agency against 
     any entity receiving a court order issued under this 
     subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or 
     agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with 
     this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other 
     than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
       (B) Immunity from liability.--Any entity receiving an order 
     under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, 
     or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any 
     acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or 
     reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action 
     pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by 
     customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on 
     access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this 
     subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict 
     access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court 
     order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith 
     efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any 
     person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, 
     other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
       (e) Enforcement of Orders.--
       (1) In general.--In order to compel compliance with this 
     section, the Attorney General may bring an action for 
     injunctive relief against any party receiving a court order 
     issued pursuant to this section that knowingly and willfully 
     fails to comply with such order.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The authority granted the 
     Attorney General under paragraph (1) shall be the sole legal 
     remedy for enforcing the obligations under this section of 
     any entity described in subsection (d).
       (3) Defense.--A defendant in an action under paragraph (1) 
     may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the 
     defendant does not have the technical means to comply with 
     the subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic 
     burden, or that the order is inconsistent with this Act. This 
     showing shall serve as a defense only to the extent of such 
     inability to comply or to the extent of such inconsistency.
       (f) Modification or Vacation of Orders.--
       (1) In general.--At any time after the issuance of an order 
     under subsection (b), a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate 
     the order may be filed by--
       (A) any person, or owner or operator of property, bound by 
     the order;
       (B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or 
     operator of the Internet site subject to the order;
       (C) any domain name registrar or registry that has 
     registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site 
     subject to the order; or
       (D) any entity that has received a copy of an order 
     pursuant to subsection (d) requiring such entity to take 
     action prescribed in that subsection.
       (2) Relief.--Relief under this subsection shall be proper 
     if the court finds that--
       (A) the Internet site associated with the domain name 
     subject to the order is no longer, or never was, an Internet 
     site dedicated to infringing activities; or
       (B) the interests of justice require that the order be 
     modified, suspended, or vacated.
       (3) Consideration.--In making a relief determination under 
     paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name 
     has expired or has been re-registered by a different party.
       (g) Related Actions.--The Attorney General, if alleging 
     that an Internet site previously adjudicated to be an 
     Internet site dedicated to infringing activities is 
     accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain 
     name, may commence a related action under this section 
     against the additional domain name in the same judicial 
     district as the previous action.

     SEC. 4. ELIMINATING THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO STEAL 
                   INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ONLINE.

       (a) Commencement of an Action.--
       (1) In personam.--A qualifying plaintiff may commence an in 
     personam action against--
       (A) a registrant of a domain name used by an Internet site 
     dedicated to infringing activities; or
       (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to 
     infringing activities accessed through a domain name.
       (2) In rem.--If through due diligence a qualifying 
     plaintiff is unable to find a person described in 
     subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person 
     found has an address within a judicial district of the United 
     States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action 
     against a domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to 
     infringing activities.
       (b) Orders of the Court.--
       (1) In general.--On application of a qualifying plaintiff 
     following the commencement of an action under this section, 
     the court

[[Page S2939]]

     may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary 
     injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the domain name 
     used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, 
     or against a registrant of such domain name, or the owner or 
     operator of such Internet site dedicated to infringing 
     activities, to cease and desist from undertaking any further 
     activity as an Internet site dedicated to infringing 
     activities, if--
       (A) the domain name is registered or assigned by a domain 
     name registrar or domain name registry that located or doing 
     business in the United States; or
       (B)(i) the domain name is used within the United States to 
     access such Internet site; and
       (ii) the Internet site--
       (I) conducts business directed to residents of the United 
     States; and
       (II) harms holders of United States intellectual property 
     rights.
       (2) Determination by the court.--For purposes of 
     determining whether an Internet site conducts business 
     directed to residents of the United States under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii)(I), a court may consider, among other indicia, 
     whether--
       (A) the Internet site is providing goods or services 
     described in section 2(7) to users located in the United 
     States;
       (B) there is evidence that the Internet site is not 
     intended to provide--
       (i) such goods and services to users located in the United 
     States;
       (ii) access to such goods and services to users located in 
     the United States; and
       (iii) delivery of such goods and services to users located 
     in the United States;
       (C) the Internet site has reasonable measures in place to 
     prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or 
     delivered to the United States;
       (D) the Internet site offers services obtained in the 
     United States; and
       (E) any prices for goods and services are indicated in the 
     currency of the United States.
       (c) Notice and Service of Process.--
       (1) In general.--Upon commencing an action under this 
     section, the qualifying plaintiff shall send a notice of the 
     alleged violation and intent to proceed under this Act to the 
     registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
       (A) at the postal and e-mail address appearing in the 
     applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if 
     any and to the extent such addresses are reasonably 
     available;
       (B) via the postal and e-mail address of the registrar, 
     registry, or other domain name registration authority that 
     registered or assigned the domain name, to the extent such 
     addresses are reasonably available; and
       (C) in any other such form as the court finds necessary, 
     including as may be required by Rule 4(f) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this section, 
     the actions described in this subsection shall constitute 
     service of process.
       (d) Required Actions Based on Court Orders.--
       (1) Service.--A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior 
     approval of the court, may, serve a copy of a court order 
     issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated 
     entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof 
     of service shall be filed with the court.
       (2) Reasonable measures.--After being served with a copy of 
     an order pursuant to this subsection:
       (A) Financial transaction providers.--A financial 
     transaction provider shall take reasonable measures, as 
     expeditiously as reasonable, designed to prevent, prohibit, 
     or suspend its service from completing payment transactions 
     involving customers located within the United States and the 
     Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in 
     the order.
       (B) Internet advertising services.--An Internet advertising 
     service that contracts with the Internet site associated with 
     the domain name set forth in the order to provide advertising 
     to or for that site, or which knowingly serves advertising to 
     or for such site, shall take technically feasible and 
     reasonable measures, as expeditiously as reasonable, designed 
     to--
       (i) prevent its service from providing advertisements to 
     the Internet site associated with such domain name; or
       (ii) cease making available advertisements for that site, 
     or paid or sponsored search results, links, or placements 
     that provide access to the domain name.
       (3) Communication with users.--An entity taking an action 
     described in this subsection shall determine how to 
     communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.
       (4) Rule of construction.--For purposes of an action 
     commenced under this section, the obligations of an entity 
     described in this subsection shall be limited to the actions 
     set out in each paragraph or subparagraph applicable to such 
     entity, and no order issued pursuant to this section shall 
     impose any additional obligations on, or require additional 
     actions by, such entity.
       (5) Actions pursuant to court order.--
       (A) Immunity from suit.--No cause of action shall lie in 
     any Federal or State court or administrative agency against 
     any entity receiving a court order issued under this 
     subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or 
     agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with 
     this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other 
     than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
       (B) Immunity from liability.--Any entity receiving an order 
     under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, 
     or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any 
     acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or 
     reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action 
     pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by 
     customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on 
     access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this 
     subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict 
     access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court 
     order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith 
     efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any 
     person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, 
     other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).
       (e) Enforcement of Orders.--
       (1) In general.--In order to compel compliance with this 
     section, the qualifying plaintiff may bring an action for 
     injunctive relief against any party receiving a court order 
     issued pursuant to this section that knowingly and willfully 
     fails to comply with such order.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The authority granted a 
     qualifying plaintiff under paragraph (1) shall be the sole 
     legal remedy for enforcing the obligations under this section 
     of any entity described in subsection (d).
       (3) Defense.--A defendant in an action commenced under 
     paragraph (1) may establish an affirmative defense by showing 
     that the defendant does not have the technical means to 
     comply with the subsection without incurring an unreasonable 
     economic burden, or that the order is inconsistent with this 
     Act. This showing shall serve as a defense only to the extent 
     of such inability to comply or to the extent of such 
     inconsistency.
       (f) Modification or Vacation of Orders.--
       (1) In general.--At any time after the issuance of an order 
     under subsection (b), a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate 
     the order may be filed by--
       (A) any person, or owner or operator of property, bound by 
     the order;
       (B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or 
     operator of the Internet site subject to the order;
       (C) any domain name registrar or registry that has 
     registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site 
     subject to the order; or
       (D) any entity that has received a copy of an order 
     pursuant to subsection (d) requiring such entity to take 
     action prescribed in that subsection.
       (2) Relief.--Relief under this subsection shall be proper 
     if the court finds that--
       (A) the Internet site associated with the domain name 
     subject to the order is no longer, or never was, dedicated to 
     infringing activities as defined in this Act; or
       (B) the interests of justice require that the order be 
     modified, suspended, or vacated.
       (3) Consideration.--In making a relief determination under 
     paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name 
     has expired or has been re-registered by a different party.
       (g) Related Actions.--A qualifying plaintiff, if alleging 
     that an Internet site previously adjudicated to be an 
     Internet site dedicated to infringing activities is 
     accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain 
     name, may commence a related action under this section 
     against the additional domain name in the same judicial 
     district as the previous action.

     SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST WEBSITES STEALING AMERICAN 
                   INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--No financial transaction provider or 
     Internet advertising service shall be liable for damages to 
     any person for voluntarily taking any action described in 
     section 3(d) or 4(d) with regard to an Internet site if the 
     entity acting in good faith and based on credible evidence 
     has a reasonable belief that the Internet site is an Internet 
     site dedicated to infringing activities.
       (b) Internet Sites Engaged in Infringing Activities That 
     Endanger the Public Health.--
       (1) Refusal of service.--A domain name registry, domain 
     name registrar, financial transaction provider, information 
     location tool, or Internet advertising service, acting in 
     good faith and based on credible evidence, may stop providing 
     or refuse to provide services to an infringing Internet site 
     that endangers the public health.
       (2) Immunity from liability.--An entity described in 
     paragraph (1), including its directors, officers, employees, 
     or agents, that ceases or refused to provide services under 
     paragraph (1) shall not be liable to any party under any 
     Federal or State law for such action.
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) the term ``adulterated'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 351);
       (B) an ``infringing Internet site that endangers the public 
     health'' means--
       (i) an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities for 
     which the counterfeit products that it offers, sells, 
     dispenses, or distributes are controlled or non-controlled 
     prescription medication; or
       (ii) an Internet site that has no significant use other 
     than, or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator 
     or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts 
     or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for--

[[Page S2940]]

       (I) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any 
     controlled or non-controlled prescription medication, and 
     does so regularly without a valid prescription; or
       (II) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any 
     controlled or non-controlled prescription medication, and 
     does so regularly for medication that is adulterated or 
     misbranded;

       (C) the term ``misbranded'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 352); and
       (D) the term ``valid prescription'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 309(e)(2)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 829(e)(2)(A)).

     SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSES.

       (a) Rule of Construction Relating to Civil and Criminal 
     Remedies.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or 
     expand civil or criminal remedies available to any person 
     (including the United States) for infringing activities on 
     the Internet pursuant to any other Federal or State law.
       (b) Rule of Construction Relating to Vicarious or 
     Contributory Liability.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory 
     liability for any cause of action available under title 17, 
     United States Code, including any limitations on liability 
     under section 512 of such title 17, or to create an 
     obligation to take action pursuant to section 5 of this Act.
       (c) Relationship With Section 512 of Title 17.--Nothing in 
     this Act, and no order issued or served pursuant to sections 
     3 or 4 of this Act, shall serve as a basis for determining 
     the application of section 512 of title 17, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 7. GUIDELINES AND STUDIES.

       (a) Guidelines.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) publish procedures developed in consultation with other 
     relevant law enforcement agencies, including the United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to receive 
     information from the public about Internet sites dedicated to 
     infringing activities;
       (2) provide guidance to intellectual property rights 
     holders about what information such rights holders should 
     provide law enforcement agencies to initiate an investigation 
     pursuant to this Act;
       (3) provide guidance to intellectual property rights 
     holders about how to supplement an ongoing investigation 
     initiated pursuant to this Act;
       (4) establish standards for prioritization of actions 
     brought under this Act;
       (5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case 
     management and development to affect timely disposition of 
     actions brought under this Act; and
       (6) develop a deconfliction process in consultation with 
     other law enforcement agencies, including the United States 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to coordinate 
     enforcement activities brought under this Act.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Report on effectiveness of certain measures.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
     Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, shall conduct 
     a study and report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives on the following:
       (A) An assessment of the effects, if any, of the 
     implementation of section 3(d)(2)(A) on the accessibility of 
     Internet sites dedicated to infringing activity.
       (B) An assessment of the effects, if any, of the 
     implementation of section 3(d)(2)(A) on the deployment, 
     security, and reliability of the domain name system and 
     associated Internet processes, including Domain Name System 
     Security Extensions.
       (C) Recommendations, if any, for modifying or amending this 
     Act to increase effectiveness or ameliorate any unintended 
     effects of section 3(d)(2)(A).
       (2) Report on overall effectiveness.--The Register of 
     Copyrights shall, in consultation with the appropriate 
     departments and agencies of the United States and other 
     stakeholders--
       (A) conduct a study on--
       (i) the enforcement and effectiveness of this Act; and
       (ii) the need to modify or amend this Act to apply to 
     emerging technologies; and
       (B) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives on--
       (i) the results of the study conducted under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (ii) any recommendations that the Register may have as a 
     result of the study.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express support for S. 968, the 
Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of 
Intellectual Property, PROTECT, Act as introduced by my colleague, 
Senator Leahy. Chairman Leahy and I have worked together on the 
protection of intellectual property rights on a number of occasions 
over the years and I am pleased to partner with him once again on this 
important bill. I also want to recognize the efforts of Senator 
Grassley, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. He is a valued friend and his support is greatly 
appreciated as we move forward.
  With this legislation, we are sending a strong message to those 
selling or distributing counterfeit goods online, namely that the 
United States will strongly protect its intellectual property, IP, 
rights. Despite what seems to be a common assumption, just because 
something is available on the Internet does not mean it is free. Fake 
pharmaceuticals threaten people's lives. Stolen movies, music, and 
other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people. Every 
year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars 
by stealing American IP, and this undermines legitimate commerce. This 
is why protecting property rights is a critical imperative and is why 
we have come together to introduce the PROTECT IP Act.
  Utah is considered a very popular State for film and television 
production activity. Indeed, many American classics have been filmed in 
my home State. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the 
sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Not to mention Utah's 
workforce, which is one of the most highly educated and hardworking in 
our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television 
industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions 
of dollars in wages in Utah. So, IP theft has a direct, negative impact 
on Utah's economy and its workforce, and this same impact can be seen 
nationwide.
  There is no question that the legislative process can be tedious at 
times, and often it takes multiple Congresses to get things right. We 
witnessed this first hand in the patent reform debate. It took three 
Congresses for the Senate to pass patent reform legislation. I was 
pleased to be the lead Republican sponsor of the America Invents Act, 
S. 23, which passed the Senate in March by a vote of 95 to 5. I can 
confirm that the final Senate-passed bill was a product of countless 
hours of negotiation and legislative fine-tuning. While I hope the bill 
before us will not take nearly as long, I can confirm that significant 
and positive changes have already occurred since we introduced the 
bipartisan legislation last year. These changes include a narrower 
definition of the type of Internet sites to which the bill applies, 
specifically those ``dedicated to infringing activities;'' 
authorization for the Attorney General to serve an issued court order 
on a search engine, in addition to payment processors, advertising 
networks and Internet service providers; authorization for both the 
Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online 
infringers operating an Internet site or domain where the site is 
``dedicated to infringing activities,'' but with remedies limited to 
eliminating the financial viability of the site, not blocking access; 
requirement of plaintiffs to attempt to bring an action against the 
owner or registrant of the domain name used to access an Internet site 
``dedicated to infringing activities'' before bringing an action 
against the domain name itself; protection for domain name registries, 
registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising 
networks from damages resulting from their voluntary action against an 
Internet site ``dedicated to infringing activities,'' where that site 
also ``endangers the public health,'' by offering controlled or non-
controlled prescription medication.
  It is worth underscoring that the purpose of the PROTECT IP Act is to 
take down Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities, or in 
other words, the most egregious offenders in the world of online IP 
theft. Indeed, the bill authorizes the Department of Justice, DOJ, to 
file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name 
that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-
registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must seek 
approval from a Federal court before taking any action. I trust that a 
Federal judge will weigh all of the facts carefully before issuing an 
order, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to shut 
down a Web site dedicated to infringing activities.
  There is no quick fix to this problem. But doing nothing is not an 
option. We must explore ways, albeit in incremental steps, to take down 
offending

[[Page S2941]]

Web sites. For this reason, I believe the PROTECT IP Act is a critical 
step in our ongoing fight against online piracy and counterfeiting. I 
am pleased with the progress that we have made so far on this bill and 
look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it 
moves through the legislative process.
  We must take steps to combat those Web sites that are profiting from 
stolen American intellectual property.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Thune):
  S. 971. A bill to promote neutrality, simplicity, and fairness in the 
taxation of digital goods and digital services; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods 
and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, in introducing this needed 
legislation.
  The creation and consumption of downloadable digital goods, like 
books, songs, ringtones and video games, and the provision of digital 
services, like health care monitoring and cloud computing, represent a 
rapidly growing segment of our national economy. These goods and 
services, which are supporting a growing number of American jobs, are 
sold over communications networks that transcend numerous state and 
local boundaries. Tax law, not surprisingly, has failed to keep pace 
with the rapidly changing technology and economy. The lack of a 
national framework addressing how State and local taxes can be imposed 
upon these products has led to a confusing process that will only grow 
more burdensome for consumers and the providers of digital commerce as 
new, innovative and emerging technologies become available.
  Since digital goods and services can be downloaded in a mobile 
environment, there is a significant question as to which jurisdiction 
has the authority to tax such purchases. In fact, there is substantial 
risk that, without a national framework, multiple States and localities 
will claim they have authority to tax the same digital transaction. For 
example, if a consumer is on vacation in another State and downloads a 
song, the State the consumer is visiting, the State that houses the 
server providing the song, and the consumer's home State could all 
claim the authority to tax the purchase. This is not only an unfair tax 
burden on the consumer, but also for the seller that is responsible for 
identifying the jurisdiction on whose behalf it should be collecting 
taxes. Left unchecked, these multiple taxes could stifle the digital 
commerce and crush a growing industry that is creating the good jobs 
that our country needs.
  We can't let that happen. We need a uniform solution that will 
modernize our State and local tax system to appropriately address the 
inherent complexities that digital commerce presents.
  Neutrality should guide tax policy and administration in the area of 
digital commerce. Transactions involving similar types of goods and 
services should be taxed fairly, regardless of the method and means of 
distribution, whether through electronic transfer or through other 
channels of commerce. To ensure neutrality and avoid multiple taxation, 
rules should be adopted to reflect the unique nature of electronic 
commerce and how digital goods and digital services are provided.
  I am introducing the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to 
establish a framework for when and how local governments can tax 
digital goods and services. The framework put forward in the 
legislation respects States' authority to tax these products while also 
fostering innovation and growth in this segment of global commerce.
  In most cases, this legislation will use the address of the consumer 
to determine which jurisdiction has the authority to tax a digital 
purchase, as long as the State has passed a law to do so and is 
lawfully able under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Supreme 
Court's Quill decision. Similar to mobile phones, digital purchases 
should be taxed by the State the consumer resides, not the State that 
they may have been traveling through while they downloaded the digital 
product.
  This legislation would also preclude discriminatory taxes from being 
imposed on digital goods and services solely because they are 
transmitted over communication networks. Additionally, this legislation 
would ensure that if States tax digital goods and services, they should 
only be taxed at the same rate imposed upon other tangible goods taxed 
under the general sales tax.
  The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 is structured 
to provide discipline, but also certainty to States and local 
governments that wish to tax digital commerce and to the businesses and 
consumers that are engaged in this marketplace. Our economy is changing 
in a variety of exciting ways. Congress must be responsive to this 
reality and consider this legislation soon.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Ms. Landrieu, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 973. A bill to create the National Endowment for the Oceans to 
promote the protection and conservation of the United States ocean, 
coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss an 
important piece of bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today 
with my friend and fellow New Englander, Senator Snowe, to establish a 
national endowment for the study, conservation, and restoration of our 
Nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
  Let me begin with a particular thank-you to our original cosponsors: 
the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West 
Virginia; the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye 
of Hawaii; my colleague from the great State of Michigan, Senator 
Stabenow; and two colleagues from the Gulf of Mexico region, Senator 
Bill Nelson of Florida and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.
  As any Rhode Islander can tell you, the ocean is central to our 
State's way of life. I tell colleagues that Rhode Island's coast is one 
of the most beautiful places on Earth. But we don't call Rhode Island 
the Ocean State just because it is beautiful. We are the Ocean State 
because from our earliest days we have relied on the ocean and our 
beloved Narragansett Bay for trade, for food, for recreation, and for 
jobs in the shipbuilding, shipping, fishing, and tourism industries.
  And we are not alone--across America, our oceans and coasts directly 
provide over $130 billion to our country's gross domestic product, and 
support 2.3 million America jobs. But one impact goes far beyond that.
  Our coastal zone areas generate nearly 50 percent of our Nation's 
gross domestic product and support more than 28 million jobs.
  In part, it is Americans' love of and reliance on the oceans that 
drives the need now to protect and restore them. Coastal America is 
experiencing a huge population boom, leading to more and more 
construction that puts significant pressure on our natural coastline 
and our wetlands.
  Worldwide demand for seafood grows at a pace that our fish stocks 
cannot keep pace with, and our demand for energy leads us ever deeper 
into the ocean in search of fuel.
  There is an old adage, that nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. 
If this is true, it must be time to focus on taking care of our oceans, 
because I believe that our oceans are facing what can be characterized 
as nothing less than a crisis. Our oceans are facing an array of 
threats, from marine debris aggregating in gyres the size of Texas, to 
whales so full of bio-accumulative toxins that they constitute swimming 
hazardous waste.
  These are just a few of the headlines from just the past year:
  This spring, we have watched in horror as Japan, already suffering 
from a terrible earthquake and tsunami--and our hearts go out to them--
battled to keep the Fukushima Nuclear Plant intact. Leaks from the 
plant have sent harmful levels of radiation into the ocean.
  In July of 2010, the Midwest experienced its largest oil spill ever, 
after a leaking Michigan pipeline poured oil into the Kalamazoo River 
and thence into the Great Lakes.
  Last June, the journal Science published a literature review by 
researchers from the University of Queensland

[[Page S2942]]

and UNC Chapel Hill, revealing mounting evidence that:

       Rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving 
     ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of 
     years, with an associated risk of fundamental and 
     irreversible ecological transformation.

  In my home State of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay has witnessed 
a 4-degree increase in average annual winter water temperature, causing 
what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.
  And of course, in April 2010, we witnessed the horrific explosion of 
the Deepwater Horizon, the tragic loss of life, and the unfolding of 
the largest environmental disaster our country has ever seen. The Gulf 
of Mexico, and the people who depend on this ecosystem for their 
sustenance and livelihoods, are still struggling to recover.
  We are now 13 months beyond the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Lives 
are still shattered; livelihoods reliant on the gulf ecosystem are 
still threatened. But we are within the window of action. It is not too 
late to provide for short-term restoration of the gulf coast to enact 
legislation that reduces the risk of future oilspills, and as my 
cosponsors and I seek to provide dedicated funding to study, protect, 
and restore the marine and coastal ecosystems within the United States' 
boundaries.
  The National Endowment for the Oceans is our proposal to meet this 
last challenge. The Endowment would make grants available to coastal 
and Great Lakes States, local government agencies, regional planning 
bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations so these 
entities could embark on projects to learn more about and do a better 
job of protecting our precious natural resource. Projects that allow 
researchers to hire technicians, mechanics, computer scientists and 
students. Projects that put people to work relocating critical public 
infrastructure jeopardized by sea level rise. Projects that solve 
resource management problems and restore our natural ecosystems. 
Projects that protect jobs by restoring commercial fisheries habitat, 
and creating new fisheries gear for sustainable and profitable fishing.

  The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration received $167 million 
for coastal restoration projects under the Recovery Act. More than 800 
proposals for shovel-ready construction and engineering projects came 
in, totaling $3 billion worth of work. But NOAA could only fund 50 of 
the 800.
  The National Endowment for the Oceans would help us move forward with 
these projects and others that protect our oceans and drive our 
economy. As I stand here today, more than a year after the beginning of 
the oilspill in the gulf, and in the face of mounting evidence that our 
oceans and coasts are truly facing a crisis, I understand the feelings 
of concern and frustration. But, again, I believe it is not too late.
  In fact, I believe the time is now to pass legislation that will help 
to restore the gulf ecosystem. The time is now to pass legislation that 
will reduce the risk of future oilspills. And it is time now to provide 
dedicated funding for the study, restoration, and protection of our 
Nation's ocean and coastal resources.
  We need to put the stewardship of our natural resources, our ocean 
resources, at the forefront of our national agenda. The National 
Endowment for the Oceans, as I said, is bipartisan. I thank Senator 
Olympia Snowe for her leadership in this effort. This legislation is 
science based, with much of the money made available through a 
competitive grant program. This legislation is cost effective, 
coordinating existing efforts of Federal, local, and private programs, 
reducing duplication of research efforts, and crossing political 
borders to ensure that every dollar is spent with the greatest possible 
effect.
  Finally, this legislation is appropriately paid for with revenue 
generated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a portion of 
royalties from Outer Continental Shelf energy development, and fines 
and damages collected for violations of Federal law off our coastline. 
Put simply, a small portion of the revenue we extract from our oceans 
and great waters will be reinvested to now protect the long-term 
viability of those oceans and great waters.
  The ocean provides us with great bounty, and we will continue to take 
advantage of that, as we should. We will fish, we will sail, and we 
will trade. We will dispose of waste. We will extract fuel and 
construct wind farms. Navies and cruise ships, sail boats and 
supertankers will plow the ocean surface. We cannot change how reliant 
we are on our ocean. What we can change is what we do in return.
  We can for the first time give back. We can become stewards of our 
oceans, not just takers but caretakers. The oceans contain immense 
potential for new discoveries, immense potential for new jobs, and 
immense potential for new solutions to the emerging oceans crisis. But 
to meet the demands of this moment, we must respond to the challenges 
before us. We must heed the alarm bells that are ringing from the 
arctic seas to our tropic oceans, from the top of the food chain to the 
bottom, alarm bells indeed are ringing.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in support of 
the National Endowment for the Oceans. Let ours be the generation that 
tips the increasingly troubling balance between mankind and our oceans 
a little bit back toward the benefit of our oceans for the long-term 
benefit of mankind.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 974. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the tip tax credit to employers of cosmetologists and to promote tax 
compliance in the cosmetology sector; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Small 
Business Committee, I am delighted to rise today, on the eve of 
National Small Business Week, with Senator Landrieu, who is Chair of 
the Committee, to introduce the Small Business Tax Equalization and 
Compliance Act.
  Our bipartisan measure is a pro-small business bill and would allow 
the salon industry to have the same tax rules on tips paid to employees 
as is permitted in the restaurant industry. The legislation would 
increase compliance with payroll tax obligations and will make sure 
that the women who work in the salon industry earn all the Social 
Security retirement and disability benefits they should be entitled to. 
It would also help to prevent salons that do not follow the tax law 
from gaining a competitive disadvantage against those that do follow 
the law. Congressman Sam Johnson, R-TX, is leading the charge on a 
companion bill in the House.
  Clearly this legislation will help all parts of the salon industry, 
big and small, men and women. But the reality is that because 84 
percent of the workforce in the salon industry is female, this issue 
has special relevance for women. When women work as independent 
contractors at hair salons, they are less likely to disclose all of 
their tips for purposes of paying Social Security taxes. As a result, 
they reduce their future right to earn retirement and disability 
benefits in the Social Security system and reduce the size of any 
benefit they do ultimately earn. Making sure that working women are 
correctly paying into Social Security is critical to their future 
retirement security because many of these women will have had no other 
retirement benefits available to them.
  We know that women are disproportionately dependent on Social 
Security for their retirement benefits, a March 2010 study by the Women 
for Women's Policy Research showed that women's Social Security 
benefits in 2008 were only about 75 percent of the benefits earned by 
men and it comprised about half of their total retirement income. By 
contrast, Social Security benefits comprised roughly one-third of men's 
retirement income. Earning the right to collect a decent Social 
Security benefit is vital to women.
  As a small business issue, salons are a quintessential small business 
on Main Streets across America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 
percent of salon industry firms have only one establishment; 92 percent 
of salon establishments have sales of less than $500,000; and 82 
percent of salon establishments have fewer than 10 employees. Extending 
the tip tax credit to salon owners would allow them to reinvest in 
their businesses and employees,

[[Page S2943]]

create new jobs, granting new economic and employment opportunities in 
their local communities.
  I specifically want to explain what this legislation would do. First, 
it would provide to the salon industry with the same type of tax credit 
currently available in the restaurant industry. The credit is for 
employers to offset the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes 
that the salon pays on the tips that employees receive from customers. 
Next, the bill would help to make more even-handed IRS enforcement of 
laws on payroll and income taxes. Without this legislation it is often 
the lopsided practice of the IRS to seek back taxes from the employer 
but rarely from the employee or independent contractor despite the 
requirement that taxes be paid in equal measure.
  The legislation will protect both legitimate independent contractors 
and employees who pay their taxes but frees up IRS resources to focus 
on those bad actors who are not complying with the law. Although non-
employer salons comprise 87 percent of establishments, their reported 
sales represent only 36 percent of total salon industry revenues, 
implying a significant underreporting of income in the non-employer 
segment. This legislation includes education and reporting requirements 
which will help address the ``tax gap'' and reveal a valuable new 
source of tax revenues for the federal government. This is a win-win-
win for the salons, for employees, and for the government.
  This bill is supported by the Professional Beauty Association, the 
largest association in the professional beauty industry, which is 
comprised of salon and spa owners, manufacturers and distributors of 
salon and spa products, and individual licensed cosmetologists.
  Finally, I want to thank two salon owners who brought this issue to 
my attention, Alan Labos of Akari Salon in Portland, ME, Tiffany Conway 
of bei capelli salon in Scarborough, ME.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support our 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. 974

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Tax 
     Equalization and Compliance Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR PORTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   TAXES PAID WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEE TIPS.

       (a) Expansion of Credit to Other Lines of Business.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 45B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Application only to certain lines of business.--In 
     applying paragraph (1), there shall be taken into account 
     only tips received from customers or clients in connection 
     with--
       ``(A) the providing, delivering, or serving of food or 
     beverages for consumption if the tipping of employees 
     delivering or serving food or beverages by customers is 
     customary, or
       ``(B) the providing of any cosmetology service for 
     customers or clients at a facility licensed to provide such 
     service if the tipping of employees providing such service is 
     customary.''.
       (b) Definition of Cosmetology Service.--Section 45B of such 
     Code is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 
     subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Cosmetology Service.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `cosmetology service' means--
       ``(1) hairdressing,
       ``(2) haircutting,
       ``(3) manicures and pedicures,
       ``(4) body waxing, facials, mud packs, wraps, and other 
     similar skin treatments, and
       ``(5) any other beauty-related service provided at a 
     facility at which a majority of the services provided (as 
     determined on the basis of gross revenue) are described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (4).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to tips received for services performed after 
     December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 3. INFORMATION REPORTING AND TAXPAYER EDUCATION FOR 
                   PROVIDERS OF COSMETOLOGY SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after section 6050W the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050X. RETURNS RELATING TO COSMETOLOGY SERVICES AND 
                   INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO COSMETOLOGISTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Every person (referred to in this 
     section as a `reporting person') who--
       ``(1) employs 1 or more cosmetologists to provide any 
     cosmetology service,
       ``(2) rents a chair to 1 or more cosmetologists to provide 
     any cosmetology service on at least 5 calendar days during a 
     calendar year, or
       ``(3) in connection with its trade or business or rental 
     activity, otherwise receives compensation from, or pays 
     compensation to, 1 or more cosmetologists for the right to 
     provide cosmetology services to, or for cosmetology services 
     provided to, third-party patrons,

     shall comply with the return requirements of subsection (b) 
     and the taxpayer education requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(b) Return Requirements.--The return requirements of this 
     subsection are met by a reporting person if the requirements 
     of each of the following paragraphs applicable to such person 
     are met.
       ``(1) Employees.--In the case of a reporting person who 
     employs 1 or more cosmetologists to provide cosmetology 
     services, the requirements of this paragraph are met if such 
     person meets the requirements of sections 6051 (relating to 
     receipts for employees) and 6053(b) (relating to tip 
     reporting) with respect to each such employee.
       ``(2) Independent contractors.--In the case of a reporting 
     person who pays compensation to 1 or more cosmetologists 
     (other than as employees) for cosmetology services provided 
     to third-party patrons, the requirements of this paragraph 
     are met if such person meets the applicable requirements of 
     section 6041 (relating to returns filed by persons making 
     payments of $600 or more in the course of a trade or 
     business), section 6041A (relating to returns to be filed by 
     service-recipients who pay more than $600 in a calendar year 
     for services from a service provider), and each other 
     provision of this subpart that may be applicable to such 
     compensation.
       ``(3) Chair renters.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a reporting person who 
     receives rent or other fees or compensation from 1 or more 
     cosmetologists for use of a chair or for rights to provide 
     any cosmetology service at a salon or other similar facility 
     for more than 5 days in a calendar year, the requirements of 
     this paragraph are met if such person--
       ``(i) makes a return, according to the forms or regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the name, address, 
     and TIN of each such cosmetologist and the amount received 
     from each such cosmetologist, and
       ``(ii) furnishes to each cosmetologist whose name is 
     required to be set forth on such return a written statement 
     showing--

       ``(I) the name, address, and phone number of the 
     information contact of the reporting person,
       ``(II) the amount received from such cosmetologist, and
       ``(III) a statement informing such cosmetologist that (as 
     required by this section), the reporting person has advised 
     the Internal Revenue Service that the cosmetologist provided 
     cosmetology services during the calendar year to which the 
     statement relates.

       ``(B) Method and time for providing statement.--The written 
     statement required by clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall 
     be furnished (either in person or by first-class mail which 
     includes adequate notice that the statement or information is 
     enclosed) to the person on or before January 31 of the year 
     following the calendar year for which the return under clause 
     (i) of subparagraph (A) is to be made.
       ``(c) Taxpayer Education Requirements.--In the case of a 
     reporting person who is required to provide a statement 
     pursuant to subsection (b), the requirements of this 
     subsection are met if such person provides to each such 
     cosmetologist annually a publication, as designated by the 
     Secretary, describing--
       ``(1) in the case of an employee, the tax and tip reporting 
     obligations of employees, and
       ``(2) in the case of a cosmetologist who is not an employee 
     of the reporting person, the tax obligations of independent 
     contractors or proprietorships.

     The publications shall be furnished either in person or by 
     first-class mail which includes adequate notice that the 
     publication is enclosed.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Cosmetologist.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `cosmetologist' means an 
     individual who provides any cosmetology service.
       ``(B) Anti-avoidance rule.--The Secretary may by regulation 
     or ruling expand the term `cosmetologist' to include any 
     entity or arrangement if the Secretary determines that 
     entities are being formed to circumvent the reporting 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Cosmetology service.--The term `cosmetology service' 
     has the meaning given to such term by section 45B(c).
       ``(3) Chair.--The term `chair' includes a chair, booth, or 
     other furniture or equipment from which an individual 
     provides a cosmetology service (determined without regard to 
     whether the cosmetologist is entitled to use a specific 
     chair, booth, or other similar furniture or equipment or has 
     an exclusive right to use any such chair, booth, or other 
     similar furniture or equipment).

[[Page S2944]]

       ``(e) Exceptions for Certain Employees.--Subsection (c) 
     shall not apply to a reporting person with respect to an 
     employee who is employed in a capacity for which tipping (or 
     sharing tips) is not customary.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6724(d)(1)(B) of such Code (relating to the 
     definition of information returns) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (xxiv), by striking ``and'' at 
     the end of clause (xxv) and inserting ``or'', and by 
     inserting after clause (xxv) the following new clause:
       ``(xvi) section 6050X(a) (relating to returns by 
     cosmetology service providers), and''.
       (2) Section 6724(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (GG), by striking the 
     period at the end of subparagraph (HH) and inserting ``, 
     or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (HH) the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(II) subsections (b)(3)(A)(ii) and (c) of section 6050X 
     (relating to cosmetology service providers) even if the 
     recipient is not a payee.''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart B of part III of 
     subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding 
     after the item relating to section 6050W the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 6050X. Returns relating to cosmetology services and information 
              to be provided to cosmetologists.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years after 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
        Cardin, and Mr. Reed):
  S. 979. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of 
the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin 
Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future 
generations of people in the United States; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 979

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``America's 
     Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 101. Great Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 102. Grand Staircase-Escalante Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 103. Moab-La Sal Canyons Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 104. Henry Mountains Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 105. Glen Canyon Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 106. San Juan-Anasazi Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 107. Canyonlands Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 108. San Rafael Swell Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 109. Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin Wilderness Areas.

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. General provisions.
Sec. 202. Administration.
Sec. 203. State school trust land within wilderness areas.
Sec. 204. Water.
Sec. 205. Roads.
Sec. 206. Livestock.
Sec. 207. Fish and wildlife.
Sec. 208. Management of newly acquired land.
Sec. 209. Withdrawal.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

     SEC. 101. GREAT BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Basin region of western Utah is comprised of 
     starkly beautiful mountain ranges that rise as islands from 
     the desert floor;
       (2) the Wah Wah Mountains in the Great Basin region are 
     arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery 
     slopes speckled with pinon and juniper;
       (3) the Pilot Range and Stansbury Mountains in the Great 
     Basin region are high enough to draw moisture from passing 
     clouds and support ecosystems found nowhere else on earth;
       (4) from bristlecone pine, the world's oldest living 
     organism, to newly-flowered mountain meadows, mountains of 
     the Great Basin region are islands of nature that--
       (A) support remarkable biological diversity; and
       (B) provide opportunities to experience the colossal 
     silence of the Great Basin; and
       (5) the Great Basin region of western Utah should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the preservation of the 
     natural conditions of the region.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Antelope Range (approximately 17,000 acres).
       (2) Barn Hills (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (3) Black Hills (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (4) Bullgrass Knoll (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (5) Burbank Hills/Tunnel Spring (approximately 92,000 
     acres).
       (6) Conger Mountains (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (7) Crater Bench (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (8) Crater and Silver Island Mountains (approximately 
     121,000 acres).
       (9) Cricket Mountains Cluster (approximately 62,000 acres).
       (10) Deep Creek Mountains (approximately 126,000 acres).
       (11) Drum Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (12) Dugway Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (13) Essex Canyon (approximately 1,300 acres).
       (14) Fish Springs Range (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (15) Granite Peak (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (16) Grassy Mountains (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (17) Grouse Creek Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) House Range (approximately 201,000 acres).
       (19) Keg Mountains (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (20) Kern Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (21) King Top (approximately 110,000 acres).
       (22) Ledger Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (23) Little Goose Creek (approximately 1,200 acres).
       (24) Middle/Granite Mountains (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (25) Mount Escalante (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (26) Mountain Home Range (approximately 90,000 acres).
       (27) Newfoundland Mountains (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (28) Ochre Mountain (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (29) Oquirrh Mountains (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (30) Painted Rock Mountain (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (31) Paradise/Steamboat Mountains (approximately 144,000 
     acres).
       (32) Pilot Range (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (33) Red Tops (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (34) Rockwell-Little Sahara (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (35) San Francisco Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (36) Sand Ridge (approximately 73,000 acres).
       (37) Simpson Mountains (approximately 42,000 acres).
       (38) Snake Valley (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (39) Spring Creek Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (40) Stansbury Island (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (41) Stansbury Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (42) Thomas Range (approximately 36,000 acres).
       (43) Tule Valley (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (44) Wah Wah Mountains (approximately 167,000 acres).
       (45) Wasatch/Sevier Plateaus (approximately 29,000 acres).
       (46) White Rock Range (approximately 5,200 acres).

     SEC. 102. GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Grand Staircase Area.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the area known as the Grand Staircase rises more than 
     6,000 feet in a series of great cliffs and plateaus from the 
     depths of the Grand Canyon to the forested rim of Bryce 
     Canyon;
       (B) the Grand Staircase--
       (i) spans 6 major life zones, from the lower Sonoran Desert 
     to the alpine forest; and
       (ii) encompasses geologic formations that display 
     3,000,000,000 years of Earth's history;
       (C) land managed by the Secretary lines the intricate 
     canyon system of the Paria River and forms a vital natural 
     corridor connection to the deserts and forests of those 
     national parks;
       (D) land described in paragraph (2) (other than East of 
     Bryce, Upper Kanab Creek, Moquith Mountain, Bunting Point, 
     and Vermillion Cliffs) is located within the Grand Staircase-
     Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Grand Staircase in Utah should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Bryce View (approximately 4,500 acres).
       (B) Bunting Point (approximately 11,000 acres).

[[Page S2945]]

       (C) Canaan Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres in Kane 
     County).
       (D) Canaan Peak Slopes (approximately 2,300 acres).
       (E) East of Bryce (approximately 750 acres).
       (F) Glass Eye Canyon (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (G) Ladder Canyon (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (H) Moquith Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (I) Nephi Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (J) Orderville Canyon (approximately 9,200 acres)
       (K) Paria-Hackberry (approximately 188,000 acres).
       (L) Paria Wilderness Expansion (approximately 3,300 acres).
       (M) Parunuweap Canyon (approximately 43,000 acres).
       (N) Pine Hollow (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (O) Slopes of Bryce (approximately 2,600 acres).
       (P) Timber Mountain (approximately 51,000 acres).
       (Q) Upper Kanab Creek (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (R) Vermillion Cliffs (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (S) Willis Creek (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (b) Kaiparowits Plateau.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Kaiparowits Plateau east of the Paria River is 1 of 
     the most rugged and isolated wilderness regions in the United 
     States;
       (B) the Kaiparowits Plateau, a windswept land of harsh 
     beauty, contains distant vistas and a remarkable variety of 
     plant and animal species;
       (C) ancient forests, an abundance of big game animals, and 
     22 species of raptors thrive undisturbed on the grassland 
     mesa tops of the Kaiparowits Plateau;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) (other 
     than Heaps Canyon, Little Valley, and Wide Hollow) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Kaiparowits Plateau should be protected and managed 
     as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Andalex Not (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (B) The Blues (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (C) Box Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (D) Burning Hills (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (E) Carcass Canyon (approximately 83,000 acres).
       (F) The Cockscomb (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (G) Fiftymile Bench (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (H) Fiftymile Mountain (approximately 203,000 acres).
       (I) Heaps Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (J) Horse Spring Canyon (approximately 31,000 acres).
       (K) Kodachrome Headlands (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (L) Little Valley Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (M) Mud Spring Canyon (approximately 65,000 acres).
       (N) Nipple Bench (approximately 32,000 acres).
       (O) Paradise Canyon-Wahweap (approximately 262,000 acres).
       (P) Rock Cove (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (Q) Warm Creek (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (R) Wide Hollow (approximately 6,800 acres).
       (c) Escalante Canyons.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) glens and coves carved in massive sandstone cliffs, 
     spring-watered hanging gardens, and the silence of ancient 
     Anasazi ruins are examples of the unique features that entice 
     hikers, campers, and sightseers from around the world to 
     Escalante Canyon;
       (B) Escalante Canyon links the spruce fir forests of the 
     11,000-foot Aquarius Plateau with winding slickrock canyons 
     that flow into Glen Canyon;
       (C) Escalante Canyon, 1 of Utah's most popular natural 
     areas, contains critical habitat for deer, elk, and wild 
     bighorn sheep that also enhances the scenic integrity of the 
     area;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) Escalante Canyon should be protected and managed as a 
     wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Brinkerhof Flats (approximately 3,000 acres).
       (B) Colt Mesa (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (C) Death Hollow (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (D) Forty Mile Gulch (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (E) Hurricane Wash (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (F) Lampstand (approximately 7,900 acres).
       (G) Muley Twist Flank (approximately 3,600 acres).
       (H) North Escalante Canyons (approximately 176,000 acres).
       (I) Pioneer Mesa (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (J) Scorpion (approximately 53,000 acres).
       (K) Sooner Bench (approximately 390 acres).
       (L) Steep Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (M) Studhorse Peaks (approximately 24,000 acres).

     SEC. 103. MOAB-LA SAL CANYONS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the canyons surrounding the La Sal Mountains and the 
     town of Moab offer a variety of extraordinary landscapes;
       (2) outstanding examples of natural formations and 
     landscapes in the Moab-La Sal area include the huge sandstone 
     fins of Behind the Rocks, the mysterious Fisher Towers, and 
     the whitewater rapids of Westwater Canyon; and
       (3) the Moab-La Sal area should be protected and managed as 
     a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
       (3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 
     22,000 acres).
       (4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 
     acres).
       (7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
       (10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 
     acres).
       (13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

     SEC. 104. HENRY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Henry Mountain Range, the last mountain range to be 
     discovered and named by early explorers in the contiguous 
     United States, still retains a wild and undiscovered quality;
       (2) fluted badlands that surround the flanks of 11,000-foot 
     Mounts Ellen and Pennell contain areas of critical habitat 
     for mule deer and for the largest herd of free-roaming 
     buffalo in the United States;
       (3) despite their relative accessibility, the Henry 
     Mountain Range remains 1 of the wildest, least-known ranges 
     in the United States; and
       (4) the Henry Mountain range should be protected and 
     managed to ensure the preservation of the range as a 
     wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bull Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (2) Bullfrog Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (3) Dogwater Creek (approximately 3,400 acres).
       (4) Fremont Gorge (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Long Canyon (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (6) Mount Ellen-Blue Hills (approximately 140,000 acres).
       (7) Mount Hillers (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (8) Mount Pennell (approximately 147,000 acres).
       (9) Notom Bench (approximately 6,200 acres).
       (10) Oak Creek (approximately 1,700 acres).
       (11) Ragged Mountain (approximately 28,000 acres).

     SEC. 105. GLEN CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the side canyons of Glen Canyon, including the Dirty 
     Devil River and the Red, White and Blue Canyons, contain some 
     of the most remote and outstanding landscapes in southern 
     Utah;
       (2) the Dirty Devil River, once the fortress hideout of 
     outlaw Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, has sculpted a maze of 
     slickrock canyons through an imposing landscape of monoliths 
     and inaccessible mesas;
       (3) the Red and Blue Canyons contain colorful Chinle/
     Moenkopi badlands found nowhere else in the region; and
       (4) the canyons of Glen Canyon in the State should be 
     protected and managed as wilderness areas.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:

[[Page S2946]]

       (1) Cane Spring Desert (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (2) Dark Canyon (approximately 134,000 acres).
       (3) Dirty Devil (approximately 242,000 acres).
       (4) Fiddler Butte (approximately 92,000 acres).
       (5) Flat Tops (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (6) Little Rockies (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (7) The Needle (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (8) Red Rock Plateau (approximately 213,000 acres).
       (9) White Canyon (approximately 98,000 acres).

     SEC. 106. SAN JUAN-ANASAZI WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 1,000 years ago, the Anasazi Indian culture 
     flourished in the slickrock canyons and on the pinon-covered 
     mesas of southeastern Utah;
       (2) evidence of the ancient presence of the Anasazi 
     pervades the Cedar Mesa area of the San Juan-Anasazi area 
     where cliff dwellings, rock art, and ceremonial kivas 
     embellish sandstone overhangs and isolated benchlands;
       (3) the Cedar Mesa area is in need of protection from the 
     vandalism and theft of its unique cultural resources;
       (4) the Cedar Mesa wilderness areas should be created to 
     protect both the archaeological heritage and the 
     extraordinary wilderness, scenic, and ecological values of 
     the United States; and
       (5) the San Juan-Anasazi area should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area to ensure the preservation of 
     the unique and valuable resources of that area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Allen Canyon (approximately 5,900 acres).
       (2) Arch Canyon (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (3) Comb Ridge (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (4) East Montezuma (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (5) Fish and Owl Creek Canyons (approximately 73,000 
     acres).
       (6) Grand Gulch (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (7) Hammond Canyon (approximately 4,400 acres).
       (8) Nokai Dome (approximately 93,000 acres).
       (9) Road Canyon (approximately 63,000 acres).
       (10) San Juan River (Sugarloaf) (approximately 15,000 
     acres).
       (11) The Tabernacle (approximately 7,000 acres).
       (12) Valley of the Gods (approximately 21,000 acres).

     SEC. 107. CANYONLANDS BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Canyonlands National Park safeguards only a small 
     portion of the extraordinary red-hued, cliff-walled 
     canyonland region of the Colorado Plateau;
       (2) areas near Arches National Park and Canyonlands 
     National Park contain canyons with rushing perennial streams, 
     natural arches, bridges, and towers;
       (3) the gorges of the Green and Colorado Rivers lie on 
     adjacent land managed by the Secretary;
       (4) popular overlooks in Canyonlands Nations Park and Dead 
     Horse Point State Park have views directly into adjacent 
     areas, including Lockhart Basin and Indian Creek; and
       (5) designation of those areas as wilderness would ensure 
     the protection of this erosional masterpiece of nature and of 
     the rich pockets of wildlife found within its expanded 
     boundaries.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
       (4) Demon's Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
       (5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately 
     149,000 acres).
       (8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
       (11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
       (12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
       (14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

     SEC. 108. SAN RAFAEL SWELL WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the San Rafael Swell towers above the desert like a 
     castle, ringed by 1,000-foot ramparts of Navajo Sandstone;
       (2) the highlands of the San Rafael Swell have been 
     fractured by uplift and rendered hollow by erosion over 
     countless millennia, leaving a tremendous basin punctuated by 
     mesas, buttes, and canyons and traversed by sediment-laden 
     desert streams;
       (3) among other places, the San Rafael wilderness offers 
     exceptional back country opportunities in the colorful Wild 
     Horse Badlands, the monoliths of North Caineville Mesa, the 
     rock towers of Cliff Wash, and colorful cliffs of Humbug 
     Canyon;
       (4) the mountains within these areas are among Utah's most 
     valuable habitat for desert bighorn sheep; and
       (5) the San Rafael Swell area should be protected and 
     managed to ensure its preservation as a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Cedar Mountain (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Devils Canyon (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (3) Eagle Canyon (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (4) Factory Butte (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (5) Hondu Country (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (6) Jones Bench (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (7) Limestone Cliffs (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (8) Lost Spring Wash (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (9) Mexican Mountain (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (10) Molen Reef (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (11) Muddy Creek (approximately 240,000 acres).
       (12) Mussentuchit Badlands (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (13) Pleasant Creek Bench (approximately 1,100 acres).
       (14) Price River-Humbug (approximately 120,000 acres).
       (15) Red Desert (approximately 40,000 acres).
       (16) Rock Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (17) San Rafael Knob (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) San Rafael Reef (approximately 114,000 acres).
       (19) Sids Mountain (approximately 107,000 acres).
       (20) Upper Muddy Creek (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (21) Wild Horse Mesa (approximately 92,000 acres).

     SEC. 109. BOOK CLIFFS AND UINTA BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas 
     offer--
       (A) unique big game hunting opportunities in verdant high-
     plateau forests;
       (B) the opportunity for float trips of several days 
     duration down the Green River in Desolation Canyon; and
       (C) the opportunity for calm water canoe weekends on the 
     White River;
       (2) the long rampart of the Book Cliffs bounds the area on 
     the south, while seldom-visited uplands, dissected by the 
     rivers and streams, slope away to the north into the Uinta 
     Basin;
       (3) bears, Bighorn sheep, cougars, elk, and mule deer 
     flourish in the back country of the Book Cliffs; and
       (4) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin areas should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the protection of the areas 
     as wilderness.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (1) Bourdette Draw (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Bull Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (3) Chipeta (approximately 95,000 acres).
       (4) Dead Horse Pass (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (5) Desbrough Canyon (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (6) Desolation Canyon (approximately 555,000 acres).
       (7) Diamond Breaks (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (8) Diamond Canyon (approximately 166,000 acres).
       (9) Diamond Mountain (also known as ``Wild Mountain'') 
     (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (10) Dinosaur Adjacent (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (11) Goslin Mountain (approximately 4,900 acres).
       (12) Hideout Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (13) Lower Bitter Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (14) Lower Flaming Gorge (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (15) Mexico Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (16) Moonshine Draw (also known as ``Daniels Canyon'') 
     (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (17) Mountain Home (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (18) O-Wi-Yu-Kuts (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (19) Red Creek Badlands (approximately 3,600 acres).

[[Page S2947]]

       (20) Seep Canyon (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (21) Sunday School Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (22) Survey Point (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (23) Turtle Canyon (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (24) White River (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (25) Winter Ridge (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (26) Wolf Point (approximately 15,000 acres).

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Names of Wilderness Areas.--Each wilderness area named 
     in title I shall--
       (1) consist of the quantity of land referenced with respect 
     to that named area, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Utah BLM Wilderness Proposed by S. [___], 112th Congress''; 
     and
       (2) be known by the name given to it in title I.
       (b) Map and Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a 
     legal description of each wilderness area designated by this 
     Act with--
       (A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Force of law.--A map and legal description filed under 
     paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct 
     clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal 
     description.
       (3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed and made available 
     for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION.

       Subject to valid rights in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each wilderness area designated under 
     this Act shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance 
     with--
       (1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (2) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. STATE SCHOOL TRUST LAND WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if State-owned 
     land is included in an area designated by this Act as a 
     wilderness area, the Secretary shall offer to exchange land 
     owned by the United States in the State of approximately 
     equal value in accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) 
     and section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)).
       (b) Mineral Interests.--The Secretary shall not transfer 
     any mineral interests under subsection (a) unless the State 
     transfers to the Secretary any mineral interests in land 
     designated by this Act as a wilderness area.

     SEC. 204. WATER.

       (a) Reservation.--
       (1) Water for wilderness areas.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to each wilderness area 
     designated by this Act, Congress reserves a quantity of water 
     determined by the Secretary to be sufficient for the 
     wilderness area.
       (B) Priority date.--The priority date of a right reserved 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Protection of rights.--The Secretary and other officers 
     and employees of the United States shall take any steps 
     necessary to protect the rights reserved by paragraph (1)(A), 
     including the filing of a claim for the quantification of the 
     rights in any present or future appropriate stream 
     adjudication in the courts of the State--
       (A) in which the United States is or may be joined; and
       (B) that is conducted in accordance with section 208 of the 
     Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (66 Stat. 560, 
     chapter 651).
       (b) Prior Rights Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     relinquishes or reduces any water rights reserved or 
     appropriated by the United States in the State on or before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) Specification of rights.--The Federal water rights 
     reserved by this Act are specific to the wilderness areas 
     designated by this Act.
       (2) No precedent established.--Nothing in this Act related 
     to reserved Federal water rights--
       (A) shall establish a precedent with regard to any future 
     designation of water rights; or
       (B) shall affect the interpretation of any other Act or any 
     designation made under any other Act.

     SEC. 205. ROADS.

       (a) Setbacks.--
       (1) Measurement in general.--A setback under this section 
     shall be measured from the center line of the road.
       (2) Wilderness on 1 side of roads.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on only 
     1 side shall be set at--
       (A) 300 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 100 feet from any other paved road or high standard 
     dirt or gravel road; and
       (C) 30 feet from any other road.
       (3) Wilderness on both sides of roads.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on 
     both sides (including cherry-stems or roads separating 2 
     wilderness units) shall be set at--
       (A) 200 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 40 feet from any other paved road or high standard dirt 
     or gravel road; and
       (C) 10 feet from any other roads.
       (b) Setback Exceptions.--
       (1) Well-defined topographical barriers.--If, between the 
     road and the boundary of a setback area described in 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), there is a well-
     defined cliff edge, stream bank, or other topographical 
     barrier, the Secretary shall use the barrier as the 
     wilderness boundary.
       (2) Fences.--If, between the road and the boundary of a 
     setback area specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection 
     (a), there is a fence running parallel to a road, the 
     Secretary shall use the fence as the wilderness boundary if, 
     in the opinion of the Secretary, doing so would result in a 
     more manageable boundary.
       (3) Deviations from setback areas.--
       (A) Exclusion of disturbances from wilderness boundaries.--
     In cases where there is an existing livestock development, 
     dispersed camping area, borrow pit, or similar disturbance 
     within 100 feet of a road that forms part of a wilderness 
     boundary, the Secretary may delineate the boundary so as to 
     exclude the disturbance from the wilderness area.
       (B) Limitation on exclusion of disturbances.--The Secretary 
     shall make a boundary adjustment under subparagraph (A) only 
     if the Secretary determines that doing so is consistent with 
     wilderness management goals.
       (C) Deviations restricted to minimum necessary.--Any 
     deviation under this paragraph from the setbacks required 
     under in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall be the 
     minimum necessary to exclude the disturbance.
       (c) Delineation Within Setback Area.--The Secretary may 
     delineate a wilderness boundary at a location within a 
     setback under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) if, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the delineation would enhance 
     wilderness management goals.

     SEC. 206. LIVESTOCK.

       Within the wilderness areas designated under title I, the 
     grazing of livestock authorized on the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be permitted to continue subject to such 
     reasonable regulations and procedures as the Secretary 
     considers necessary, as long as the regulations and 
     procedures are consistent with--
       (1) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
       (2) section 101(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-628; 104 Stat. 4469).

     SEC. 207. FISH AND WILDLIFE.

       Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State 
     with respect to wildlife and fish on the public land located 
     in the State.

     SEC. 208. MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED LAND.

       Any land within the boundaries of a wilderness area 
     designated under this Act that is acquired by the Federal 
     Government shall--
       (1) become part of the wilderness area in which the land is 
     located; and
       (2) be managed in accordance with this Act and other laws 
     applicable to wilderness areas.

     SEC. 209. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid rights existing on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Federal land referred to in title I is 
     withdrawn from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under public law;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under mining law; and
       (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. McCain) (by request):
  S. 981. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 
2012, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are today introducing, 
by request, the Obama administration's proposed National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. As is the case with any bill 
that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose 
of placing the Administration's proposals before Congress and the 
public without expressing our own views on the substance of these 
proposals. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services 
Committee, we look forward to giving the Administration's requested 
legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. 
        Webb):

[[Page S2948]]

  S. 982. A bill to reaffirm the authority of the Department of Defense 
to maintain United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a 
location for the detention of unprivileged enemy belligerents held by 
the Department of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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. 982

       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 ``Detaining Terrorists to 
     Secure America Act of 2011.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following finding:
       (1) The United States and its international partners are in 
     an armed conflict with violent Islamist extremist groups, 
     including al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations, 
     that are committed to killing Americans and our allies.
       (2) In the last 2 years, terrorists have repeatedly 
     attempted to kill Americans both here at home and abroad, 
     including the following attacks, plots, or alleged plots and 
     attacks:
       (A) A September 2009 plot by Najibullah Zazi--who received 
     training from al Qaeda in Pakistan--to conduct a suicide bomb 
     attack on the New York, New York, subway system.
       (B) A November 2009 attack by Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort 
     Hood, Texas, that killed 13 people and wounded 32.
       (C) A Christmas Day 2009 attempt by Umar Farouk 
     Abdulmutallab to detonate a bomb sewn into his underwear on 
     an international flight to Detroit, Michigan.
       (D) A May 2010 attempt by Faisal Shahzad to bomb Times 
     Square in New York, New York, on a crowded Saturday evening, 
     an attack that was unsuccessful only because the car bomb 
     failed to detonate.
       (E) An October 2010 attempt by terrorists in Yemen to send, 
     via commercial cargo flights, 2 packages of explosives to 
     Jewish centers in Chicago, Illinois.
       (F) A February 2011 plot by Khaled Aldawsari, a Saudi-born 
     student, to manufacture explosives and potentially attack New 
     York, New York, the Dallas, Texas, home of former President 
     George W. Bush, as well as hydroelectric dams, nuclear power 
     plants, and a nightclub.
       (3) Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on our Nation, 
     the United States and allied forces have captured thousands 
     of individuals fighting for or supporting al Qaeda and 
     associated terrorist organizations that do not abide by the 
     law of war, including detainees at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who served as planners of 
     those attacks, trainers of terrorists, financiers of 
     terrorists, bomb makers, bodyguards for Osama bin Laden, 
     recruiters of terrorists, and facilitators of terrorism.
       (4) Many of the detainees at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay provided valuable intelligence that gave the 
     United States insight into al Qaeda and its methods, 
     prevented terrorist attacks, and saved lives.
       (5) Intelligence obtained from detainees at United States 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay was critical to eventually 
     identifying the location of Osama bin Laden.
       (6) In a February 17, 2011, hearing of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate, the Secretary of Defense 
     confirmed that approximately 25 percent of detainees released 
     from the detention facility at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay are confirmed to have reengaged in hostilities 
     or are suspected of having reengaged in hostilities against 
     the United States or our allies.
       (7) Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an organization that 
     includes former detainees at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay among its leadership and ranks, has claimed 
     responsibility for several of the recent plots and attacks 
     against the United States.
       (8) Detention according to the law of war is a matter of 
     national security and military necessity and has long been 
     recognized as legitimate under international law.
       (9) Detaining unprivileged enemy belligerents prevents them 
     from returning to the battlefield to attack United States and 
     allied military personnel and engaging in future terrorist 
     attacks against innocent civilians.
       (10) The Joint Task Force-Guantanamo provides for the 
     humane, legal, and transparent care and custody of detainees 
     at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     notwithstanding regular assaults on the guard force by some 
     detainees.
       (11) The International Committee of the Red Cross visits 
     detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay on a 
     quarterly basis.
       (12) The detention facility at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay benefits from robust oversight by Congress.

     SEC. 3. REAFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN UNITED STATES 
                   NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, AS A 
                   LOCATION FOR THE DETENTION OF UNPRIVILEGED 
                   ENEMY BELLIGERENTS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE.

       (a) Reaffirmation of Authority as Location for Detention of 
     Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents.--United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is and shall be a location for 
     the detention of individuals in the custody or under the 
     control of the Department of Defense who have engaged in, or 
     supported, hostilities against the United States or its 
     coalition partners on behalf of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an 
     affiliated group to which the Authorization for Use of 
     Military Force (Public Law 107-40) applies.
       (b) Maintenance as an Operational Facility for Detention.--
     The Secretary of Defense shall take appropriate actions to 
     maintain United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
     as an open and operating facility for the detention of 
     current and future individuals as described in subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Permanent Extension and Expansion of Certain 
     Limitations Relating to Detainees and Detention Facilities.--
       (1) Limitation on transfer of detainees to foreign 
     entities.--Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 
     124 Stat. 4351) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``during the one-year 
     period'' and all that follows through ``by this Act'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``as of October 1, 
     2009,'' and inserting ``as of or after October 1, 2009,''.
       (2) Prohibition on construction of detention facilities in 
     united states.--Section 1034 of such Act (124 Stat. 4353) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``None of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act'' and inserting 
     ``No funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Defense, or to or for any 
     other department or agency of the United States 
     Government,''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``as of October 1, 
     2009,'' and inserting ``as of or after October 1, 2009,''.
       (d) Supersedure of Executive Order.--Sections 3, 4(c)(2), 
     4(c)(3), 4(c)(5), and 7 of Executive Order No. 13492, dated 
     January 22, 2009, shall have no further force or effect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Sanders, Mr. Casey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Franken, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and 
        Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 984. A bill to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they 
can address their own health needs and the health needs of their 
families; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last weekend we observed Mother's Day and 
celebrated our families. When we reflect on our own mothers, many of us 
think about the woman who nursed us when we were sick, took us to the 
doctor for checkups, and cared for our grandparents as they aged, while 
at the same time working to put food on the table.
  These balancing acts are hard enough. But for many moms, and dads, 
across the country, juggling all these roles means making impossible 
choices. This is especially true for people who do not have the basic 
right of paid sick days. For these workers, missing work due to an 
illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and 
their family's financial security in jeopardy. So they are forced to 
choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In these 
difficult economic times, no one should have to make that choice.
  But for a huge segment of the American workforce, these difficult 
choices are a daily reality. Four in ten U.S. workers have no paid sick 
days, they cannot miss a day of work with the guarantee of their pay or 
the assurance that their job will be there when they come back. What is 
more, 2/3 of low-wage workers, those who can least afford to lose a 
paycheck or a job, have no paid sick days. This means many of these 
workers report to work sick or send their children to school or day 
care sick, spreading their illness to others.
  This robs workers of their basic dignity, and that shouldn't happen 
in a country as wealthy and successful as America. In fact, the U.S. is 
the only developed country that does not guarantee paid sick days to 
its workers, and our workers are the most productive in the world! 
America's workers deserve to earn a decent living; a living where they 
can provide for their families without being punished when they or 
their children catch the flu. America's workers deserve paid sick days.

[[Page S2949]]

  Lack of access to paid sick days isn't just a crisis for individual 
families--it's a public health crisis as well. Health officials urge 
people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid 
spreading disease. But the workers in industries with the most contact 
with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least 
likely to have paid sick days. A recent survey shows that nearly two-
thirds of restaurant workers, 3/4 of whom don't have paid sick days, 
report cooking or serving food while sick. This puts the health of all 
of us in jeopardy. And not having paid sick days puts these workers in 
the terrible position of choosing between the health of their customers 
and their family's health and economic security.
  But this doesn't have to be the case. We can give working people the 
tools they need to protect their health and their families' health 
while also safeguarding the public health. Workers want to do the right 
thing and stay home when they are ill or stay home with their sick 
children rather than sending them to school. But our current laws 
simply do not protect them.
  This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the 
Healthy Families Act, which will allow U.S. workers to earn up to 7 
paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a 
sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are 
victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide 
much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the 
obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and 
decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving 
employees the access they need to obtain preventive care and treatment. 
It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their 
families and their futures.
  Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people 
and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as 
well. Allowing workers to tend to their health or their families' 
engenders good will and loyalty, and boosts morale at the workplace. 
Businesses will save because the greatest cause of lost productivity 
due to illness is not absenteeism but ``presenteeism,'' the practice of 
sick workers coming to work, infecting their colleagues, and being less 
productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days 
will also benefit from reduced turnover, and its high associated costs, 
when workers can hold on to their jobs. Experience bears this out, in 
San Francisco, where workers have had guaranteed paid sick days since 
2007, surveys show that 6 out of 7 employers found no negative effect 
on profit. Indeed, 4 years after implementation, two-thirds of surveyed 
employers were supportive of the city's paid sick days law.
  The overall economy will benefit from reduced health costs as well. 
Ensuring that workers are able to seek preventive care as well as care 
in a doctor's office, rather than the ER, will minimize health care 
costs. Reducing the spread of contagious illnesses by allowing workers 
or children to stay at home where they won't infect their coworkers or 
classmates will also reduce health costs by keeping more people healthy 
in the first place.
  Most of all, workers will have peace of mind and financial security. 
They won't be faced with a potentially long search for new work, while 
collecting unemployment benefits. They won't face reduced income and 
having to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other 
necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have 
the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to 
tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks.
  The Healthy Families Act has had the strongest of Senate champions 
who have led the fight for workers' rights, Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Dodd. I am proud to be the new leader for this vital piece of 
legislation. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original 
cosponsors, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the 
Healthy Families Act. This bill will provide health, peace of mind, and 
security for America's workers and their families. At a time when the 
American Dream and the middle class seem to be slipping away, these 
goals could never be more important.
  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. 984

       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 ``Healthy Families Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Working Americans need time to meet their own health 
     care needs and to care for family members, including their 
     children, spouse, parents, and parents-in-law, and other 
     children and adults for whom they are caregivers.
       (2) Health care needs include preventive health care, 
     diagnostic procedures, medical treatment, and recovery in 
     response to short- and long-term illnesses and injuries.
       (3) Providing employees time off to meet health care needs 
     ensures that they will be healthier in the long run. 
     Preventive care helps avoid illnesses and injuries and 
     routine medical care helps detect illnesses early and shorten 
     their duration.
       (4) When parents are available to care for their children 
     who become sick, children recover faster, more serious 
     illnesses are prevented, and children's overall mental and 
     physical health improve. In a 2009 study published in the 
     American Journal of Public Health, 81 percent of parents of a 
     child with special health care needs reported that taking 
     leave from work to be with their child had a ``good'' or 
     ``very good'' effect on their child's physical health. 
     Similarly, 85 percent of parents of such a child found that 
     taking such leave had a ``good'' or ``very good'' effect on 
     their child's emotional health.
       (5) When parents cannot afford to miss work and must send 
     children with contagious illnesses to child care centers or 
     schools, infection can spread rapidly through child care 
     centers and schools.
       (6) Providing paid sick time improves public health by 
     reducing infectious disease. Policies that make it easier for 
     sick adults and children to be isolated at home reduce the 
     spread of infectious disease.
       (7) Routine medical care reduces medical costs by detecting 
     and treating illness and injury early, decreasing the need 
     for emergency care. These savings benefit public and private 
     payers of health insurance, including private businesses.
       (8) The provision of individual and family sick time by 
     large and small businesses, both here in the United States 
     and elsewhere, demonstrates that policy solutions are both 
     feasible and affordable in a competitive economy. A 2009 
     study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found 
     that, of 22 countries with comparable economies, the United 
     States was 1 of only 3 countries that did not provide any 
     paid time off for workers with short-term illnesses.
       (9) Measures that ensure that employees are in good health 
     and do not need to worry about unmet family health problems 
     help businesses by promoting productivity and reducing 
     employee turnover.
       (10) The American Productivity Audit completed in 2003 
     found that lost productivity due to illness costs 
     $226,000,000,000 annually, and that 71 percent of that cost 
     stems from presenteeism, the practice of employees coming to 
     work despite illness. Studies in the Journal of Occupational 
     and Environmental Medicine, the Employee Benefit News, and 
     the Harvard Business Review show that presenteeism is a 
     larger productivity drain than either absenteeism or short-
     term disability.
       (11) The absence of paid sick time has forced Americans to 
     make untenable choices between needed income and jobs on the 
     one hand and caring for their own and their family's health 
     on the other.
       (12) Nearly 40 percent of the private-sector workforce 
     (about 40,000,000 workers) lack paid sick time. Another 
     4,000,000 theoretically have access to sick time, but have 
     not been on the job long enough to use it. Millions more lack 
     sick time they can use to care for a sick child or ill family 
     member.
       (13) Workers' access to paid sick time varies dramatically 
     by wage level. For private-sector workers in the lowest 
     quartile of earners, 68 percent lack paid sick time. For 
     workers in the next 2 quartiles, 34 and 25 percent, 
     respectively, lack paid sick time. Even for workers in the 
     highest income quartile, 16 percent lack paid sick time. In 
     addition, millions of workers cannot use paid sick time to 
     care for ill family members.
       (14) Due to the roles of men and women in society, the 
     primary responsibility for family caregiving often falls on 
     women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of 
     women more than it affects the working lives of men.
       (15) An increasing number of men are also taking on 
     caregiving obligations, and men who request paid time for 
     caregiving purposes are often denied accommodation or 
     penalized because of stereotypes that caregiving is only 
     ``women's work''.
       (16) Employers' reliance on persistent stereotypes about 
     the ``proper'' roles of both men and women in the workplace 
     and in the home continues a cycle of discrimination and 
     fosters stereotypical views about women's commitment to work 
     and their value as employees.

[[Page S2950]]

       (17) Employment standards that apply to only one gender 
     have serious potential for encouraging employers to 
     discriminate against employees and applicants for employment 
     who are of that gender.
       (18) It is in the national interest to ensure that all 
     Americans can care for their own health and the health of 
     their families while prospering at work.
       (19) Nearly 1 in 3 American women report physical or sexual 
     abuse by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. 
     Domestic violence also affects men. Women account for about 
     85 percent of the victims of domestic violence and men 
     account for approximately 15 percent of the victims. 
     Therefore, women disproportionately need time off to care for 
     their health or to find solutions, such as obtaining a 
     restraining order or finding housing, to avoid or prevent 
     physical or sexual abuse.
       (20) One study showed that 85 percent of domestic violence 
     victims at a women's shelter who were employed missed work 
     because of abuse. The mean number of days of paid work lost 
     by a rape victim is 8.1 days, by a victim of physical assault 
     is 7.2 days, and by a victim of stalking is 10.1 days. 
     Nationwide, domestic violence victims lose almost 8,000,000 
     days of paid work per year.
       (21) Without paid sick days that can be used to address the 
     effects of domestic violence, these victims are in grave 
     danger of losing their jobs. One survey found that 96 percent 
     of employed domestic violence victims experienced problems at 
     work related to the violence. The Government Accountability 
     Office similarly found that 24 to 52 percent of victims 
     report losing a job due, at least in part, to domestic 
     violence. The loss of employment can be particularly 
     devastating for victims of domestic violence, who often need 
     economic security to ensure safety.
       (22) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 
     estimated that domestic violence costs over $700,000,000 
     annually due to the victims' lost productivity in employment.
       (23) Efforts to assist abused employees result in positive 
     outcomes for employers as well as employees because employers 
     can retain workers who might otherwise be compelled to leave.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that all working Americans can address their 
     own health needs and the health needs of their families by 
     requiring employers to permit employees to earn up to 56 
     hours of paid sick time including paid time for family care;
       (2) to diminish public and private health care costs by 
     enabling workers to seek early and routine medical care for 
     themselves and their family members;
       (3) to assist employees who are, or whose family members 
     are, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or 
     stalking, by providing the employees with paid time away from 
     work to allow the victims to receive treatment and to take 
     the necessary steps to ensure their protection;
       (4) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) in a manner that is feasible for employers; and
       (5) consistent with the provision of the 14th amendment to 
     the Constitution relating to equal protection of the laws, 
     and pursuant to Congress' power to enforce that provision 
     under section 5 of that amendment--
       (A) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) in a manner that minimizes the potential for 
     employment discrimination on the basis of sex by ensuring 
     generally that paid sick time is available for eligible 
     medical reasons on a gender-neutral basis; and
       (B) to promote the goal of equal employment opportunity for 
     women and men.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Child.--The term ``child'' means a biological, foster, 
     or adopted child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a 
     person standing in loco parentis, who is--
       (A) under 18 years of age; or
       (B) 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care 
     because of a mental or physical disability.
       (2) Domestic violence.--The term ``domestic violence'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 40002(a) of the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)), 
     except that the reference in such section to the term 
     ``jurisdiction receiving grant monies'' shall be deemed to 
     mean the jurisdiction in which the victim lives or the 
     jurisdiction in which the employer involved is located.
       (3) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means an individual 
     who is--
       (A)(i) an employee, as defined in section 3(e) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)), who is not 
     covered under subparagraph (E), including such an employee of 
     the Library of Congress, except that a reference in such 
     section to an employer shall be considered to be a reference 
     to an employer described in clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of 
     paragraph (4)(A); or
       (ii) an employee of the Government Accountability Office;
       (B) a State employee described in section 304(a) of the 
     Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
     16c(a));
       (C) a covered employee, as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301), 
     other than an applicant for employment;
       (D) a covered employee, as defined in section 411(c) of 
     title 3, United States Code; or
       (E) a Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter 
     V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Employer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``employer'' means a person who 
     is--
       (i)(I) a covered employer, as defined in subparagraph (B), 
     who is not covered under subclause (V);
       (II) an entity employing a State employee described in 
     section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991;
       (III) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995;
       (IV) an employing office, as defined in section 411(c) of 
     title 3, United States Code; or
       (V) an employing agency covered under subchapter V of 
     chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (ii) is engaged in commerce (including government), or an 
     industry or activity affecting commerce (including 
     government), as defined in subparagraph (B)(iii).
       (B) Covered employer.--
       (i) In general.--In subparagraph (A)(i)(I), the term 
     ``covered employer''--

       (I) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry 
     or activity affecting commerce who employs 15 or more 
     employees for each working day during each of 20 or more 
     calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year;
       (II) includes--

       (aa) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the 
     interest of an employer to any of the employees of such 
     employer; and
       (bb) any successor in interest of an employer;

       (III) includes any ``public agency'', as defined in section 
     3(x) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     203(x)); and
       (IV) includes the Government Accountability Office and the 
     Library of Congress.

       (ii) Public agency.--For purposes of clause (i)(III), a 
     public agency shall be considered to be a person engaged in 
     commerce or in an industry or activity affecting commerce.
       (iii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph:

       (I) Commerce.--The terms ``commerce'' and ``industry or 
     activity affecting commerce'' mean any activity, business, or 
     industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder 
     or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce, and 
     include ``commerce'' and any ``industry affecting commerce'', 
     as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 501 of the 
     Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142 (1) and 
     (3)).
       (II) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 3(e) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)).
       (III) Person.--The term ``person'' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 3(a) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(a)).

       (C) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to an 
     employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such 
     employer.
       (5) Employment benefits.--The term ``employment benefits'' 
     means all benefits provided or made available to employees by 
     an employer, including group life insurance, health 
     insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, annual leave, 
     educational benefits, and pensions, regardless of whether 
     such benefits are provided by a practice or written policy of 
     an employer or through an ``employee benefit plan'', as 
     defined in section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(3)).
       (6) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means a provider who--
       (A)(i) is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is 
     authorized to practice medicine or surgery (as appropriate) 
     by the State in which the doctor practices; or
       (ii) is any other person determined by the Secretary to be 
     capable of providing health care services; and
       (B) is not employed by an employer for whom the provider 
     issues certification under this Act.
       (7) Paid sick time.--The term ``paid sick time'' means an 
     increment of compensated leave that can be earned by an 
     employee for use during an absence from employment for any of 
     the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     section 5(b).
       (8) Parent.--The term ``parent'' means a biological, 
     foster, or adoptive parent of an employee, a stepparent of an 
     employee, or a legal guardian or other person who stood in 
     loco parentis to an employee when the employee was a child.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.
       (10) Sexual assault.--The term ``sexual assault'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 40002(a) of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)).
       (11) Spouse.--The term ``spouse'', with respect to an 
     employee, has the meaning given such term by the marriage 
     laws of the State in which the employee resides.
       (12) Stalking.--The term ``stalking'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)).
       (13) Victim services organization.--The term ``victim 
     services organization'' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental 
     organization that provides assistance to victims of domestic 
     violence, sexual assault, or stalking or advocates for such 
     victims, including a rape crisis center, an organization 
     carrying out a domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
     prevention or treatment program, an organization operating a 
     shelter or providing

[[Page S2951]]

     counseling services, or a legal services organization or 
     other organization providing assistance through the legal 
     process.

     SEC. 5. PROVISION OF PAID SICK TIME.

       (a) Accrual of Paid Sick Time.--
       (1) In general.--An employer shall permit each employee 
     employed by the employer to earn not less than 1 hour of paid 
     sick time for every 30 hours worked, to be used as described 
     in subsection (b). An employer shall not be required to 
     permit an employee to earn, under this section, more than 56 
     hours of paid sick time in a calendar year, unless the 
     employer chooses to set a higher limit.
       (2) Exempt employees.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), for 
     purposes of this section, an employee who is exempt from 
     overtime requirements under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)) shall be 
     assumed to work 40 hours in each workweek.
       (B) Shorter normal workweek.--If the normal workweek of 
     such an employee is less than 40 hours, the employee shall 
     earn paid sick time based upon that normal work week.
       (3) Dates of accrual and use.--Employees shall begin to 
     earn paid sick time under this section at the commencement of 
     their employment. An employee shall be entitled to use the 
     earned paid sick time beginning on the 60th calendar day 
     following commencement of the employee's employment. After 
     that 60th calendar day, the employee may use the paid sick 
     time as the time is earned. An employer may, at the 
     discretion of the employer, loan paid sick time to an 
     employee in advance of the earning of such time under this 
     section by such employee.
       (4) Carryover.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     paid sick time earned under this section shall carry over 
     from 1 calendar year to the next.
       (B) Construction.--This Act shall not be construed to 
     require an employer to permit an employee to accrue more than 
     56 hours of earned paid sick time at a given time.
       (5) Employers with existing policies.--Any employer with a 
     paid leave policy who makes available an amount of paid leave 
     that is sufficient to meet the requirements of this section 
     and that may be used for the same purposes and under the same 
     conditions as the purposes and conditions outlined in 
     subsection (b) shall not be required to permit an employee to 
     earn additional paid sick time under this section.
       (6) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as requiring financial or other reimbursement to an 
     employee from an employer upon the employee's termination, 
     resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment 
     for earned paid sick time that has not been used.
       (7) Reinstatement.--If an employee is separated from 
     employment with an employer and is rehired, within 12 months 
     after that separation, by the same employer, the employer 
     shall reinstate the employee's previously earned paid sick 
     time. The employee shall be entitled to use the earned paid 
     sick time and earn additional paid sick time at the 
     recommencement of employment with the employer.
       (8) Prohibition.--An employer may not require, as a 
     condition of providing paid sick time under this Act, that 
     the employee involved search for or find a replacement worker 
     to cover the hours during which the employee is using paid 
     sick time.
       (b) Uses.--Paid sick time earned under this section may be 
     used by an employee for any of the following:
       (1) An absence resulting from a physical or mental illness, 
     injury, or medical condition of the employee.
       (2) An absence resulting from obtaining professional 
     medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, for 
     the employee.
       (3) An absence for the purpose of caring for a child, a 
     parent, a spouse, or any other individual related by blood or 
     affinity whose close association with the employee is the 
     equivalent of a family relationship, who--
       (A) has any of the conditions or needs for diagnosis or 
     care described in paragraph (1) or (2); and
       (B) in the case of someone who is not a child, is otherwise 
     in need of care.
       (4) An absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, or stalking, if the time is to--
       (A) seek medical attention for the employee or the 
     employee's child, parent, or spouse, or an individual related 
     to the employee as described in paragraph (3), to recover 
     from physical or psychological injury or disability caused by 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
       (B) obtain or assist a related person described in 
     paragraph (3) in obtaining services from a victim services 
     organization;
       (C) obtain or assist a related person described in 
     paragraph (3) in obtaining psychological or other counseling;
       (D) seek relocation; or
       (E) take legal action, including preparing for or 
     participating in any civil or criminal legal proceeding 
     related to or resulting from domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, or stalking.
       (c) Scheduling.--An employee shall make a reasonable effort 
     to schedule a period of paid sick time under this Act in a 
     manner that does not unduly disrupt the operations of the 
     employer.
       (d) Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Paid sick time shall be provided upon the 
     oral or written request of an employee. Such request shall--
       (A) include the expected duration of the period of such 
     time;
       (B) in a case in which the need for such period of time is 
     foreseeable at least 7 days in advance of such period, be 
     provided at least 7 days in advance of such period; and
       (C) otherwise, be provided as soon as practicable after the 
     employee is aware of the need for such period.
       (2) Certification in general.--
       (A) Provision.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), an employer 
     may require that a request for paid sick time under this 
     section for a purpose described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) 
     of subsection (b) be supported by a certification issued by 
     the health care provider of the eligible employee or of an 
     individual described in subsection (b)(3), as appropriate, if 
     the period of such time covers more than 3 consecutive 
     workdays.
       (ii) Timeliness.--The employee shall provide a copy of such 
     certification to the employer in a timely manner, not later 
     than 30 days after the first day of the period of time. The 
     employer shall not delay the commencement of the period of 
     time on the basis that the employer has not yet received the 
     certification.
       (B) Sufficient certification.--
       (i) In general.--A certification provided under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be sufficient if it states--

       (I) the date on which the period of time will be needed;
       (II) the probable duration of the period of time;
       (III) the appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of 
     the health care provider regarding the condition involved, 
     subject to clause (ii); and
       (IV)(aa) for purposes of paid sick time under subsection 
     (b)(1), a statement that absence from work is medically 
     necessary;
       (bb) for purposes of such time under subsection (b)(2), the 
     dates on which testing for a medical diagnosis or care is 
     expected to be given and the duration of such testing or 
     care; and
       (cc) for purposes of such time under subsection (b)(3), in 
     the case of time to care for someone who is not a child, a 
     statement that care is needed for an individual described in 
     such subsection, and an estimate of the amount of time that 
     such care is needed for such individual.

       (ii) Limitation.--In issuing a certification under 
     subparagraph (A), a health care provider shall make 
     reasonable efforts to limit the medical facts described in 
     clause (i)(III) that are disclosed in the certification to 
     the minimum necessary to establish a need for the employee to 
     utilize paid sick time.
       (C) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed under section 13 
     shall specify the manner in which an employee who does not 
     have health insurance shall provide a certification for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       (D) Confidentiality and nondisclosure.--
       (i) Protected health information.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall be construed to require a health care provider to 
     disclose information in violation of section 1177 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-6) or the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to section 264(c) of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).
       (ii) Health information records.--If an employer possesses 
     health information about an employee or an employee's child, 
     parent, spouse or other individual described in subsection 
     (b)(3), such information shall--

       (I) be maintained on a separate form and in a separate file 
     from other personnel information;
       (II) be treated as a confidential medical record; and
       (III) not be disclosed except to the affected employee or 
     with the permission of the affected employee.

       (3) Certification in the case of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, or stalking.--
       (A) In general.--An employer may require that a request for 
     paid sick time under this section for a purpose described in 
     subsection (b)(4) be supported by 1 of the following forms of 
     documentation:
       (i) A police report indicating that the employee, or a 
     member of the employee's family described in subsection 
     (b)(4), was a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or 
     stalking.
       (ii) A court order protecting or separating the employee or 
     a member of the employee's family described in subsection 
     (b)(4) from the perpetrator of an act of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, or stalking, or other evidence from the court 
     or prosecuting attorney that the employee or a member of the 
     employee's family described in subsection (b)(4) has appeared 
     in court or is scheduled to appear in court in a proceeding 
     related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
       (iii) Other documentation signed by an employee or 
     volunteer working for a victim services organization, an 
     attorney, a police officer, a medical professional, a social 
     worker, an antiviolence counselor, or a member of the clergy, 
     affirming that the employee or a member of the employee's 
     family described in subsection (b)(4) is a victim of domestic 
     violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
       (B) Requirements.--The requirements of paragraph (2) shall 
     apply to certifications under this paragraph, except that--
       (i) subclauses (III) and (IV) of subparagraph (B)(i) and 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) of such paragraph shall not apply;
       (ii) the certification shall state the reason that the 
     leave is required with the facts to

[[Page S2952]]

     be disclosed limited to the minimum necessary to establish a 
     need for the employee to be absent from work, and the 
     employee shall not be required to explain the details of the 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking involved; and
       (iii) with respect to confidentiality under subparagraph 
     (D) of such paragraph, any information provided to the 
     employer under this paragraph shall be confidential, except 
     to the extent that any disclosure of such information is--

       (I) requested or consented to in writing by the employee; 
     or
       (II) otherwise required by applicable Federal or State law.

     SEC. 6. POSTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Each employer shall post and keep posted a 
     notice, to be prepared or approved in accordance with 
     procedures specified in regulations prescribed under section 
     13, setting forth excerpts from, or summaries of, the 
     pertinent provisions of this Act including--
       (1) information describing paid sick time available to 
     employees under this Act;
       (2) information pertaining to the filing of an action under 
     this Act;
       (3) the details of the notice requirement for a foreseeable 
     period of time under section 5(d)(1)(B); and
       (4) information that describes--
       (A) the protections that an employee has in exercising 
     rights under this Act; and
       (B) how the employee can contact the Secretary (or other 
     appropriate authority as described in section 8) if any of 
     the rights are violated.
       (b) Location.--The notice described under subsection (a) 
     shall be posted--
       (1) in conspicuous places on the premises of the employer, 
     where notices to employees (including applicants) are 
     customarily posted; or
       (2) in employee handbooks.
       (c) Violation; Penalty.--Any employer who willfully 
     violates the posting requirements of this section shall be 
     subject to a civil fine in an amount not to exceed $100 for 
     each separate offense.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       (a) Interference With Rights.--
       (1) Exercise of rights.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise 
     of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this 
     Act, including--
       (A) discharging or discriminating against (including 
     retaliating against) any individual, including a job 
     applicant, for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any 
     right provided under this Act;
       (B) using the taking of paid sick time under this Act as a 
     negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, 
     promotion, or a disciplinary action; or
       (C) counting the paid sick time under a no-fault attendance 
     policy or any other absence control policy.
       (2) Discrimination.--It shall be unlawful for any employer 
     to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against 
     (including retaliating against) any individual, including a 
     job applicant, for opposing any practice made unlawful by 
     this Act.
       (b) Interference With Proceedings or Inquiries.--It shall 
     be unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other 
     manner discriminate against (including retaliating against) 
     any individual, including a job applicant, because such 
     individual--
       (1) has filed an action, or has instituted or caused to be 
     instituted any proceeding, under or related to this Act;
       (2) has given, or is about to give, any information in 
     connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any 
     right provided under this Act; or
       (3) has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry 
     or proceeding relating to any right provided under this Act.
       (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to state or imply that the scope of the activities 
     prohibited by section 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act 
     of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2615) is less than the scope of the 
     activities prohibited by this section.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection:
       (A) the term ``employee'' means an employee described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 4(3); and
       (B) the term ``employer'' means an employer described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of section 4(4)(A)(i).
       (2) Investigative authority.--
       (A) In general.--To ensure compliance with the provisions 
     of this Act, or any regulation or order issued under this 
     Act, the Secretary shall have, subject to subparagraph (C), 
     the investigative authority provided under section 11(a) of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 211(a)), with 
     respect to employers, employees, and other individuals 
     affected.
       (B) Obligation to keep and preserve records.--An employer 
     shall make, keep, and preserve records pertaining to 
     compliance with this Act in accordance with section 11(c) of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 211(c)) and 
     in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       (C) Required submissions generally limited to an annual 
     basis.--The Secretary shall not require, under the authority 
     of this paragraph, an employer to submit to the Secretary any 
     books or records more than once during any 12-month period, 
     unless the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe there 
     may exist a violation of this Act or any regulation or order 
     issued pursuant to this Act, or is investigating a charge 
     pursuant to paragraph (4).
       (D) Subpoena authority.--For the purposes of any 
     investigation provided for in this paragraph, the Secretary 
     shall have the subpoena authority provided for under section 
     9 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 209).
       (3) Civil action by employees or individuals.--
       (A) Right of action.--An action to recover the damages or 
     equitable relief prescribed in subparagraph (B) may be 
     maintained against any employer in any Federal or State court 
     of competent jurisdiction by one or more employees or 
     individuals or their representative for and on behalf of--
       (i) the employees or individuals; or
       (ii) the employees or individuals and others similarly 
     situated.
       (B) Liability.--Any employer who violates section 7 
     (including a violation relating to rights provided under 
     section 5) shall be liable to any employee or individual 
     affected--
       (i) for damages equal to--

       (I) the amount of--

       (aa) any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other 
     compensation denied or lost by reason of the violation; or
       (bb) in a case in which wages, salary, employment benefits, 
     or other compensation have not been denied or lost, any 
     actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the 
     violation up to a sum equal to 56 hours of wages or salary 
     for the employee or individual;

       (II) the interest on the amount described in subclause (I) 
     calculated at the prevailing rate; and
       (III) an additional amount as liquidated damages; and

       (ii) for such equitable relief as may be appropriate, 
     including employment, reinstatement, and promotion.
       (C) Fees and costs.--The court in an action under this 
     paragraph shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the 
     plaintiff, allow a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable 
     expert witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid 
     by the defendant.
       (4) Action by the secretary.--
       (A) Administrative action.--The Secretary shall receive, 
     investigate, and attempt to resolve complaints of violations 
     of section 7 (including a violation relating to rights 
     provided under section 5) in the same manner that the 
     Secretary receives, investigates, and attempts to resolve 
     complaints of violations of sections 6 and 7 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 and 207).
       (B) Civil action.--The Secretary may bring an action in any 
     court of competent jurisdiction to recover the damages 
     described in paragraph (3)(B)(i).
       (C) Sums recovered.--Any sums recovered by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be held in a special 
     deposit account and shall be paid, on order of the Secretary, 
     directly to each employee or individual affected. Any such 
     sums not paid to an employee or individual affected because 
     of inability to do so within a period of 3 years shall be 
     deposited into the Treasury of the United States as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       (5) Limitation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an 
     action may be brought under paragraph (3), (4), or (6) not 
     later than 2 years after the date of the last event 
     constituting the alleged violation for which the action is 
     brought.
       (B) Willful violation.--In the case of an action brought 
     for a willful violation of section 7 (including a willful 
     violation relating to rights provided under section 5), such 
     action may be brought within 3 years of the date of the last 
     event constituting the alleged violation for which such 
     action is brought.
       (C) Commencement.--In determining when an action is 
     commenced under paragraph (3), (4), or (6) for the purposes 
     of this paragraph, it shall be considered to be commenced on 
     the date when the complaint is filed.
       (6) Action for injunction by secretary.--The district 
     courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, for 
     cause shown, in an action brought by the Secretary--
       (A) to restrain violations of section 7 (including a 
     violation relating to rights provided under section 5), 
     including the restraint of any withholding of payment of 
     wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation, 
     plus interest, found by the court to be due to employees or 
     individuals eligible under this Act; or
       (B) to award such other equitable relief as may be 
     appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and 
     promotion.
       (7) Solicitor of labor.--The Solicitor of Labor may appear 
     for and represent the Secretary on any litigation brought 
     under paragraph (4) or (6).
       (8) Government accountability office and library of 
     congress.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, in the case of the Government Accountability 
     Office and the Library of Congress, the authority of the 
     Secretary of Labor under this subsection shall be exercised 
     respectively by the Comptroller General of the United States 
     and the Librarian of Congress.
       (b) Employees Covered by Congressional Accountability Act 
     of 1995.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided in 
     the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 
     et seq.) to the Board (as defined in section 101 of that Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 1301)), or any person, alleging a violation of 
     section 202(a)(1) of that Act (2 U.S.C. 1312(a)(1)) shall be 
     the powers, remedies, and procedures this

[[Page S2953]]

     Act provides to that Board, or any person, alleging an 
     unlawful employment practice in violation of this Act against 
     an employee described in section 4(3)(C).
       (c) Employees Covered by Chapter 5 of Title 3, United 
     States Code.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in chapter 5 of title 3, United States Code, to the 
     President, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or any person, 
     alleging a violation of section 412(a)(1) of that title, 
     shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this Act 
     provides to the President, that Board, or any person, 
     respectively, alleging an unlawful employment practice in 
     violation of this Act against an employee described in 
     section 4(3)(D).
       (d) Employees Covered by Chapter 63 of Title 5, United 
     States Code.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in title 5, United States Code, to an employing agency, 
     provided in chapter 12 of that title to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board, or provided in that title to any person, 
     alleging a violation of chapter 63 of that title, shall be 
     the powers, remedies, and procedures this Act provides to 
     that agency, that Board, or any person, respectively, 
     alleging an unlawful employment practice in violation of this 
     Act against an employee described in section 4(3)(E).
       (e) Remedies for State Employees.--
       (1) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--A State's receipt or use 
     of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity 
     of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, 
     under the 11th amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to 
     a suit brought by an employee of that program or activity 
     under this Act for equitable, legal, or other relief 
     authorized under this Act.
       (2) Official capacity.--An official of a State may be sued 
     in the official capacity of the official by any employee who 
     has complied with the procedures under subsection (a)(3), for 
     injunctive relief that is authorized under this Act. In such 
     a suit the court may award to the prevailing party those 
     costs authorized by section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 
     U.S.C. 1988).
       (3) Applicability.--With respect to a particular program or 
     activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or 
     after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on 
     which a State first receives or uses Federal financial 
     assistance for that program or activity.
       (4) Definition of program or activity.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``program or activity'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000d-4a).

     SEC. 9. COLLECTION OF DATA ON PAID SICK TIME AND FURTHER 
                   STUDY.

       (a) Compilation of Information.--Effective 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics shall annually compile information on the 
     following:
       (1) The number of employees who used paid sick time.
       (2) The number of hours of paid sick time used.
       (3) The number of employees who used paid sick time for 
     absences necessary due to domestic violence, sexual assault, 
     or stalking.
       (4) The demographic characteristics of employees who were 
     eligible for and who used paid sick time.
       (b) GAO Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall annually conduct a study to determine the 
     following:
       (A)(i) The number of days employees used paid sick time and 
     the reasons for the use.
       (ii) The number of employees who used the paid sick time 
     for periods of time covering more than 3 consecutive 
     workdays.
       (B) The cost and benefits to employers of implementing the 
     paid sick time policies.
       (C) The cost to employees of providing certification to 
     obtain the paid sick time.
       (D) The benefits of the paid sick time to employees and 
     their family members, including effects on employees' ability 
     to care for their family members or to provide for their own 
     health needs.
       (E) Whether the paid sick time affected employees' ability 
     to sustain an adequate income while meeting needs of the 
     employees and their family members.
       (F) Whether employers who administered paid sick time 
     policies prior to the date of enactment of this Act were 
     affected by the provisions of this Act.
       (G) Whether other types of leave were affected by this Act.
       (H) Whether paid sick time affected retention and turnover 
     and costs of presenteeism.
       (I) Whether the paid sick time increased the use of less 
     costly preventive medical care and lowered the use of 
     emergency room care.
       (J) Whether the paid sick time reduced the number of 
     children sent to school when the children were sick.
       (2) Aggregating data.--The data collected under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (D) of paragraph (1) shall be 
     aggregated by gender, race, disability, earnings level, age, 
     marital status, family type, including parental status, and 
     industry.
       (3) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall prepare and submit a report to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress concerning the results of the study 
     conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) and the data aggregated 
     under paragraph (2).
       (B) Followup report.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall prepare and submit a followup report to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress concerning the results 
     of the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) and the data 
     aggregated under paragraph (2).

     SEC. 10. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Federal and State Antidiscrimination Laws.--Nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed to modify or affect any Federal 
     or State law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, 
     religion, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
       (b) State and Local Laws.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to supersede (including preempting) any provision 
     of any State or local law that provides greater paid sick 
     time or leave rights (including greater paid sick time or 
     leave, or greater coverage of those eligible for paid sick 
     time or leave) than the rights established under this Act.

     SEC. 11. EFFECT ON EXISTING EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

       (a) More Protective.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply 
     with any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or any 
     employment benefit program or plan that provides greater paid 
     sick leave or other leave rights to employees or individuals 
     than the rights established under this Act.
       (b) Less Protective.--The rights established for employees 
     under this Act shall not be diminished by any contract, 
     collective bargaining agreement, or any employment benefit 
     program or plan.

     SEC. 12. ENCOURAGEMENT OF MORE GENEROUS LEAVE POLICIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to discourage 
     employers from adopting or retaining leave policies more 
     generous than policies that comply with the requirements of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 13. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Authority.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act with respect to employees 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 4(3) and 
     other individuals affected by employers described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of section 4(4)(A)(i).
       (2) Government accountability office; library of 
     congress.--The Comptroller General of the United States and 
     the Librarian of Congress shall prescribe the regulations 
     with respect to employees of the Government Accountability 
     Office and the Library of Congress, respectively and other 
     individuals affected by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the Librarian of Congress, respectively.
       (b) Employees Covered by Congressional Accountability Act 
     of 1995.--
       (1) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board of Directors of the Office 
     of Compliance shall prescribe (in accordance with section 304 
     of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1384)) such regulations as are necessary to carry out this 
     Act with respect to employees described in section 4(3)(C) 
     and other individuals affected by employers described in 
     section 4(4)(A)(i)(III).
       (2) Agency regulations.--The regulations prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be the same as substantive regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary to carry out this Act except 
     insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and 
     stated together with the regulations prescribed under 
     paragraph (1), that a modification of such regulations would 
     be more effective for the implementation of the rights and 
     protections involved under this section.
       (c) Employees Covered by Chapter 5 of Title 3, United 
     States Code.--
       (1) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President (or the designee of the 
     President) shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary 
     to carry out this Act with respect to employees described in 
     section 4(3)(D) and other individuals affected by employers 
     described in section 4(4)(A)(i)(IV).
       (2) Agency regulations.--The regulations prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be the same as substantive regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary to carry out this Act except 
     insofar as the President (or designee) may determine, for 
     good cause shown and stated together with the regulations 
     prescribed under paragraph (1), that a modification of such 
     regulations would be more effective for the implementation of 
     the rights and protections involved under this section.
       (d) Employees Covered by Chapter 63 of Title 5, United 
     States Code.--
       (1) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall prescribe such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act with respect to employees 
     described in section 4(3)(E) and other individuals affected 
     by employers described in section 4(4)(A)(i)(V).
       (2) Agency regulations.--The regulations prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be the same as substantive regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary to carry out this Act except 
     insofar as the Director may determine, for good cause shown 
     and stated together with the regulations prescribed under 
     paragraph (1), that a modification of such regulations would 
     be more effective for the implementation of the rights and 
     protections involved under this section.

[[Page S2954]]

     SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 6 months 
     after the date of issuance of regulations under section 
     13(a)(1).
       (b) Collective Bargaining Agreements.--In the case of a 
     collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective 
     date prescribed by subsection (a), this Act shall take effect 
     on the earlier of--
       (1) the date of the termination of such agreement; or
       (2) the date that occurs 18 months after the date of 
     issuance of regulations under section 13(a)(1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 992. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
direct care registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratio requirements in 
hospitals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we mark the end of National Nurses 
Week, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the nurses who 
serve on the front lines of our health care system. Nurses are heroes, 
not just to their patients, but to the families and loved ones who rely 
on their compassion and care.
  While we celebrate nurses this week, we must also acknowledge that 
too many nurses are overworked because of staffing levels that are 
simply inadequate.
  For decades nurses have been telling us that we need more of them to 
provide quality care to our loved ones, especially in hospitals. Study 
after study has been done, we know there is a nationwide nursing 
shortage.
  By 2020, it is estimated that the demand for full time nurses will 
exceed supply by 1 million nurses.
  That is why I am introducing the National Nursing Shortage Reform and 
Patient Advocacy Act, which will not only help address the nationwide 
shortage of skilled nurses, it will improve the quality of health care 
for all Americans.
  The National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act 
champions nursing rights, nursing ratios, and nursing reform.
  This bill protects the rights of nurses to speak out for their 
patients and to speak out for themselves, without the fear of 
discrimination or retaliation, because if there is a problem in a 
hospital nurses should be able to talk about it.
  This bill sets minimum nurse to patient ratios, because if we expect 
nurses to give patients high quality care we need to give nurses the 
time to provide it. It lays out a transparent process for establishing 
staffing plans in hospitals and puts forward the tools for nurses to 
report inadequate staffing or care.
  This bill reforms the role of hospitals not just in working with 
nurses to improve care, but also in training nurses. It creates 
mentorship and preceptorship programs to support nurses as they adapt 
to the hospital setting and grow in their profession.
  Twelve years ago, nurses in California fought and won a major battle 
for their patients and for themselves, and the results were minimum 
nurse to patient ratios in California hospitals.
  I am proud to join with nurses in their effort to improve care for 
their patients, and introduce Federal legislation that would extend 
these rights, ratios and reforms to nurses in hospitals across the 
country.
  Reports on California ratios have only begun to show what so many of 
the nurses I meet already know, that setting a minimum standard for 
safe staffing can mean the difference between life and death of 
patients.
  A 2002 study found that for every patient added to a nurse's workload 
there is a 7 percent increase in the chance of death following common 
surgeries.
  In California, the hospitals that have seen the greatest effect in 
reduced mortality were the ones that started with the worst staffing 
ratios.
  We also know that hospitals are losing good nurses because of these 
staffing shortages. A poll of nurses nationwide found that almost half 
of the nurses who plan to quit their job say that inadequate staffing 
is the reason they are leaving. The cost of replacing these valuable 
workers has been estimated at $25,000 to $60,000 per nurse. That is an 
added cost that we know our health care system cannot afford.
  Too many nurses get burned out by being overloaded with too many 
patients. Too many nurses have given up on serving in hospitals because 
the hospitals have given up on providing a better environment for both 
nurses and patients.
  Investing more in nursing staff will help hospitals avoid costly 
medical mistakes and provide better care for their patients and most 
importantly, will save lives.
  I joined many of my colleagues in supporting provisions of health 
care reform that invested in our health care workforce. At 2.9 million 
strong, nurses are the largest health care workforce in our country, 
and this investment is long overdue.
  I am pleased to share that this bill has the support of the 
California Nurses Association as well as AFSCME-United Nurses of 
America.
  Nurses are not just the face of the movement to improve health care 
in our country, they are the face of health care in our country. This 
bill is for them and the patients they so faithfully serve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 994. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to protect 
States that have in effect laws or orders with respect to pay-to-play 
reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators 
Menendez, Lautenberg and Durbin in introducing the State Ethics Law 
Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that States are allowed 
to pass meaningful ethics reform laws without being penalized by the 
Federal government.
  Current law allows the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, to 
withhold Federal highway funds from States that ban pay-to-play 
contracting. At least 9 States and 60 cities have enacted anti pay-to-
play laws. These laws vary widely, but they generally limit political 
contributions from entities doing business with the state. The FHWA 
claims that these laws could reduce the number of potential bidders, 
thus violating an unrestricted bidding requirement set forth in Federal 
law. FHWA has selectively threatened to withhold money to certain 
States. In my home State of Illinois, the State legislature was forced 
to change its pay-to-play law just days after our former governor was 
indicted for allegedly engaging in numerous pay-to-play schemes. 
Illinois was forced to create a giant loophole in the ethics law so as 
not to lose out on millions in Federal transportation funds.
  States have the right to ensure their contracting processes adhere to 
the highest ethical standards and offer the best protection to the 
taxpayers. Selected Federal intervention is an unwarranted and 
unhelpful power grab by Federal regulators. Pay-to-play laws are 
designed to enhance, not undermine, competitive bidding. They are 
designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is open and 
fair, not motivated by political considerations.
  Our legislation would allow States to pass ethics laws that are in 
their best interests, without fear of Federal retaliation, by amending 
FHWA's contracting requirements to explicitly provide that no State or 
locality shall be considered in violation of the competitive bidding 
requirements based on political contributions. The legislation does not 
prescribe any new requirements for states, nor does it advocate for the 
passage of any single ethics law. The bill simply allows States to 
enact meaningful anti-corruption laws if they choose to do so. As 
Federal budgets tighten in these challenging economic times, it is 
imperative that we not hamstring States even further by denying them 
Federal funds for trying to limit public corruption.
  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. 994

       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 ``State Ethics Law Protection 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PAY-TO-PLAY REFORM.

       Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page S2955]]

       ``(h) Pay-To-Play Reform.--A State transportation 
     department shall not be considered to have violated a 
     requirement of this section solely because the State in which 
     that State transportation department is located, or a local 
     government within that State, has in effect a law or an order 
     that limits the amount of money an individual or entity that 
     is doing business with a State or local agency with respect 
     to a Federal-aid highway project may contribute to a 
     political party, campaign, candidate, or elected official.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KIRK:
  S. 995. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
public officials from engaging in undisclosed self-dealing; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Public 
Officials Accountability Act, to ensure that our elected leaders cannot 
use their office for their own personal benefit. Public corruption has 
turned the ``Land of Honest Abe'' into the ``Land of Political 
Corruption.'' Illinois is the 6th most corrupt state in the Union, 
based on the number of public corruption convictions over the last 
decade. If just the northern district of Illinois were a state, it 
would have had the 7th highest number of public corruption convictions 
in the country in 2009. Illinois taxpayers pay the price for this in 
the form of a hidden public corruption tax. We need to make sure our 
laws help Federal prosecutors crack down on public corruption and 
restore integrity to Illinois. One such tool is the honest services 
law.
  For the past 30 years, the Department of Justice has fought public 
corruption by convicting scores of public officials who deny citizens 
the right to ``honest services.'' We are all too familiar with 
politicians failing to perform their public duties honestly in 
Illinois.
  The most famous Illinois politicians to be convicted of honest 
services fraud include former Governor Otto Kerner, late Congressman 
Dan Rostenkowski, former city of Chicago official Robert Sorich, and 
former Governor George Ryan. William Jefferson and Congressman Bob Ney 
are a few notable national figures to be convicted of this crime.
  Back in Illinois, our former governor Rod Blagojevich is currently on 
trial after having turned Illinois into a corrupt political circus and 
a national joke. A number of charges in his original indictment were 
based on honest services fraud, including those related to his alleged 
scheme to sell President Obama's U.S. Senate seat for his own personal 
gain.
  Unfortunately, last year the Supreme court drastically narrowed the 
scope of the honest services law in the famous 2010 Enron decision, 
Skilling v. U.S. The Court struck down a significant portion of the law 
because it was unconstitutionally vague. As a result of the Supreme 
Court review, U.S. prosecutors reindicted Blagojevich, leaving out all 
honest services charges so as not to complicate the case. Blagojevich 
later was convicted on just one charge.
  The Blagojevich case was not the only one affected by the decision. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, ``In 2008 and 2009, the 
government brought honest services fraud charges in more than 100 cases 
a year,'' but in 2010 ``new prosecutions using the statute slowed to a 
trickle'' due to the Supreme Court review of the issue.
  In order to continue fighting public corruption effectively, the 
Department of Justice asked Congress to enact a clear and specific 
honest services law to withstand any constitutional review. Our bill, 
the Public Officials Accountability Act, would do just that. It would 
very clearly reinstate the portion of the law the Supreme Court struck 
down in terms that remove all ambiguity. The Public Officials 
Accountability Act would restore one of prosecutors' most important 
tools and decades of congressional intent to ensure elected leaders 
cannot use their office to further their own careers or pocketbooks.
  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. 995

       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 ``Public Officials 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON UNDISCLOSED SELF-DEALING BY PUBLIC 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1346 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1346A. Undisclosed self-dealing by public officials

       ``(a) Undisclosed Self-Dealing by Public Officials.--For 
     purposes of this chapter, the term `scheme or artifice to 
     defraud' also includes a scheme or artifice by a public 
     official to engage in undisclosed self-dealing.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Official act.--The term `official act'--
       ``(A) includes any act within the range of official duty, 
     and any decision, recommendation, or action on any question, 
     matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy, which may at 
     any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before 
     any public official, in such public official's official 
     capacity or in such official's place of trust or profit;
       ``(B) may be a single act, more than one act, or a course 
     of conduct; and
       ``(C) includes a decision or recommendation that a 
     government should not take action.
       ``(2) Public official.--The term `public official' means an 
     officer, employee, or elected or appointed representative, or 
     person acting for or on behalf of, the United States, a 
     State, or a subdivision of a State, or any department, agency 
     or branch of government thereof, in any official function, 
     under or by authority of any such department, agency, or 
     branch of government.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, and any 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
       ``(4) Undisclosed self-dealing.--The term `undisclosed 
     self-dealing' means that--
       ``(A) a public official performs an official act for the 
     purpose, in whole or in part, of benefitting or furthering a 
     financial interest of--
       ``(i) the public official;
       ``(ii) the spouse or minor child of a public official;
       ``(iii) a general business partner of the public official;
       ``(iv) a business or organization in which the public 
     official is serving as an employee, officer, director, 
     trustee, or general partner; or
       ``(v) an individual, business, or organization with whom 
     the public official is negotiating for, or has any 
     arrangement concerning, prospective employment or financial 
     compensation; and
       ``(B) the public official knowingly falsifies, conceals, 
     covers up, or fails to disclose material information 
     regarding that financial interest that is required to be 
     disclosed by any Federal, State, or local statute, rule, 
     regulation, or charter applicable to the public official.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1346 the 
     following new item:

``1346A. Undisclosed self-dealing by public officials.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to acts engaged in on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 998. A bill to amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation, in the case of airline pilots who are required by 
regulation to retire at age 60, to compute the actuarial value of 
monthly benefits in the form of a life annuity commencing at age 60; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure fair 
treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. Joining me in this 
effort are Senators Harkin and Durbin, as well as Representative George 
Miller, who is introducing the companion bill in the House of 
Representatives today.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, is the Federal agency 
that assumes responsibility for pension plans that are terminated 
because they do not have enough money to pay all benefits. PBGC's 
insurance program pays monthly benefits to the retirees that the 
pension plan provided, up to the limits set by law. PBGC requires 
individuals to retire at age 65 to receive the maximum retirement 
benefit. For years, this law was in conflict with the Federal Aviation 
Administration, FAA, requirement that pilots retire by age 60. For 
commercial airline pilots caught between these conflicting policies, 
their retirement benefits were significantly reduced.
  Congress partially addressed this issue with the passage of the Fair 
Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act, which was signed into law on 
December

[[Page S2956]]

13, 2007. The Act increased the FAA mandatory retirement age for pilots 
to age 65. However, the change did nothing to help those pilots who had 
already retired. As such, pilots who retired while the FAA age 60 rule 
was in effect are still denied the maximum pension benefit administered 
by the PBGC and are unable to rejoin the workforce as pilots.
  The conflicting FAA and PBGC requirements have had a substantial 
adverse effect on thousands of retired pilots. In general, these pilots 
have had their maximum retirement benefit reduced by one-third. For 
example, the maximum benefit from the PBGC for someone that retired at 
age 65 in 2006 is $47,659 a year. For those who retired at age 60 of 
that same year, the maximum is $30,978. Our legislation ends this 
unfair penalty. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots 
Equitable Treatment Act would direct the PBGC to calculate pension 
benefits based on retirement eligibility beginning at age 60 instead of 
age 65 for retired pilots whose pensions are affected by the 
discrepancy between the FAA and PBGC retirement requirements. We must 
pass this bill to provide some relief for pilots from Aloha Airlines, 
Delta, TWA, United Airlines, and US Airways, as well as other pilots 
who have had their pensions terminated and taken over by the PBGC and 
suffer from this wrongly imposed penalty.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can finally 
correct this wrong.
  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. 998

       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 ``Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act''.

     SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR AIRLINE PILOTS.

       (a) Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed.--Section 
     4022(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322(b)(3)) is amended by inserting at the 
     end the following: ``If, at the time of termination of a plan 
     under this title, or at the time of freezing benefit accruals 
     under a plan pursuant to subsections (a)(1) and (b) of 
     section 402 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 
     regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     required an individual to separate from service as a 
     commercial airline pilot after attaining any age before age 
     65, this paragraph shall be applied to an individual who is a 
     participant in the plan by reason of such service by 
     substituting such age for age 65. The calculation of benefit 
     liabilities and unfunded benefit liabilities under this 
     section, and the allocation of assets under section 4044, 
     shall not reflect any additional benefits the corporation 
     must guarantee due to the application of the preceding 
     sentence.''.
       (b) Aggregate Limit on Benefits Guaranteed; Criteria 
     Applicable.--Section 4022B(a) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322b(a)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``If, at the time of 
     termination of a plan under this title, or at the time of 
     freezing benefit accrual under a plan pursuant to subsections 
     (a)(1) and (b) of section 402 of the Pension Protection Act 
     of 2006, regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration required an individual to separate from 
     service as a commercial airline pilot after attaining any age 
     before age 65, this subsection shall be applied to an 
     individual who is a participant in the plan by reason of such 
     service by substituting such age for age 65.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to benefits 
     payable on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Risch, and 
        Mr. Cornyn):
  S.J. Res. 12. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal 
Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the legislatures of two-
thirds of the several States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing burdens 
placed on states by our Federal Government in recent years and how we 
can stop this trend.
  Our States have faced many Federal mandates in recent years that have 
hurt, not helped, the citizenry of our country. In 2009 alone, the 
Federal Government issued over 3,300 new rules and regulations. This 
puts the total number of Federal rules and regulations placed on our 
States and citizens at around 75,000 as of 2010. In addition, 
incredible price tags have been placed on our citizens due to these 
laws and regulations. Our country is facing trillions of dollars in 
debt and forcing further expenses onto our taxpayers is inexcusable.
  This Federal top-down approach does not encourage a strong economy. 
States and local governments should have the ability to address the 
needs of their citizens in ways that actually fix the problem without 
their hands being tied by burdensome Federal rules, regulations, and 
laws. I have always believed that the ingenuity of individuals should 
not be hampered and top-down approaches do just that. As of now, states 
have one recourse, go through the court system which is already 
backlogged.
  No matter who has the political power within our Federal Government, 
States need to have the ability to force the Federal Government to 
reconsider laws and regulations that do not support them. Providing 
states with the option of repealing any Federal law or regulation is 
the next step. Allowing a repeal option would also institute a check 
against egregious congressional actions and especially un-elected 
bureaucratic action.
  Today, I am introducing the Repeal Amendment to address this issue. 
My colleague Representative Rob Bishop of Utah is introducing this 
important piece of legislation in the House of Representatives so that 
we can give the states a real voice. Allowing States the option to say 
no will allow them the breathing room to decide what policies are best 
for them.
  The Repeal Amendment would allow States to remove unnecessary and 
burdensome Federal laws and regulations. When 2/3 of the States 
collectively find a Federal law or regulation so out of touch and 
destructive, they will have the power to repeal it if they so choose.
  States must be given back their role as an equal partner in 
addressing the needs and issues of the people of the United States. The 
growing Federal Government must be put in check and I believe that the 
Repeal Amendment will do just that.

                          ____________________