[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 74 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3430-S3451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1085. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to define next generation 
biofuel, and to allow States the option of not participating in the 
corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard due to conflicts 
with agricultural, economic, energy, and environmental goals; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill, S. 1085. I have 
some cosponsors, including Senator Snowe from Maine. The bill addresses 
something that has become very controversial. It is certainly not 
partisan in any way. It is more geographical; that is, I have been one 
who has been opposed to the corn ethanol mandates ever since they first 
came out. I opposed the 2007 Energy bill because it doubled the corn-
based ethanol mandates, despite the mounting questions surrounding 
ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its environmental 
sustainment, as well as transportational infrastructure needs. I can 
remember back when they first did it, all the environmentalists were 
saying corn ethanol will be the answer. They were all for it, but they 
are against it now. They all recognize that corn ethanol is bad for the 
environment.
  Now, the three areas I personally have a problem with are, No. 1, the 
environment; No. 2, you have a compatibility situation. You talk to any 
of the farmers, any of the marine people, they will tell you it is very 
destructive to the small engines. Thirdly, everyone is concerned with 
the high price of fuel, with the fact that corn ethanol is not good for 
your mileage. Kris Kiser of the Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers 
testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on 
ethanol's compatibility or lack of compatibility with more than 200 
million legacy engines across America which are not designed to run on 
certain blends of ethanol. I will quote her testimony before our 
committee. She said:

       In the marine industry, if your machine fails or your 
     engine fails and you are 30 miles offshore, this is a serious 
     problem. If you are in a snow machine and it fails in the 
     wilderness this is a serious problem.

  Consumers complain about the decreasing fuel efficiency around corn 
ethanol, containing 67 percent of the Btu of gasoline. We call it clear 
gas. This is a good time to say we are not talking about biomass. We 
are only talking about corn ethanol. Another problem I have in my State 
of Oklahoma is we are a big cattle State and that has driven up the 
cost of feedstock to a level that is not acceptable. According to the 
EPA, vehicles operating on E85 ethanol experience a 20-percent to 30-
percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content. 
Consumer reports found that E85 resulted in a 27-percent drop in fuel.
  As a result, you drive around Oklahoma--first of all, we are in 
Washington. It is my understanding there is no choice in Washington or 
Virginia or in Maryland and those areas. In my State of Oklahoma, we 
still have a choice, and the choice is very clear. The problem is the 
way this is set up, we will run into a barrier where they will no 
longer have clear gas available under the current formulas. For that 
reason, we have people who--at almost every station you see, the 
majority of the stations you see in Oklahoma, you have signs such as 
this: Ethanol free. 100 percent gasoline. This is all over the State of 
Oklahoma.

[[Page S3431]]

  There is a solution to this problem, and it is one I have introduced 
in this bill. Before describing that, I think the most pressing issue 
of this so-called blend wall is that EISA mandated 15 billion gallons 
of corn-based ethanol by 2015, but today it is readily apparent that 
the country cannot physically absorb this much corn ethanol. It is too 
much, too fast. In Oklahoma, ethanol's blend wall has nearly eliminated 
consumer choice. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have little 
option but to sell ethanol-blended gasoline, despite strong consumer 
demand for clear gas. There is the consumer demand all over the State 
of Oklahoma.
  What is the solution? I introduced a very simple, five-page bill. The 
bill would allow individual States to opt out of the mandate. It would 
require their State legislature wants this and they pass a resolution, 
it is signed by the governor, and they would be able to opt out. The 
State would pass a bill. It is signed by the Governor, stating its 
election to exercise this option. The Administrator of the EPA would 
then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the 
percentage amount of the gasoline consumed by this State.
  This option nonparticipation would only apply to the corn portion of 
the RFS and would not affect any of the volumetric requirements of 
advanced biofuels. We are big in advanced biofuels in my State of 
Oklahoma, the various foundations, Oklahoma State University. We have 
switchgrass we are working on, and it is something we are all for. The 
bill actually redefines cellulosic biofuels as next generation biofuel. 
The previously defined cellulosic biofuel carveout is expanded to 
include algae and any nonethanol renewable fuel derived from renewable 
biomass. So this is something that is not going to be incompatible. It 
is going to be very compatible with our interest here. So for those 
people who say: We demand to have corn-based ethanol, you can have it. 
All this is is choice, and if we and the people of my State of Oklahoma 
want a choice of clear gas or corn ethanol, they should be able to do 
it. I honestly don't think there is a legitimate argument against that. 
I plan to try to get some cosponsors. I think my good friend from 
Florida might be interested in cosponsoring something such as this 
because this gives choice to the people of his State as well as my 
State.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
  S. 1086. A bill to reauthorize the Special Olympics Sport and 
Empowerment Act of 2004, to provide assistance to Best Buddies to 
support the expansion and development of mentoring programs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to 
introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that 
Senator Blunt has joined me in introducing this legislation; he and I 
are both long-time supporters of the Special Olympics and Best Buddies 
programs authorized in this legislation. Equally importantly, we are 
continuing the bipartisan support that this legislation has 
historically enjoyed.
  The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model 
and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of 
individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years, 
Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and 
confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition 
for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their 
programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of 
individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal 
opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health 
care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a 
nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with 
intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in 
society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to 
include them.
  I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for 
all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my state 
of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of 
athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in 
addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into 
an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience.
  Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social 
isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer 
support and friendships with their peers without disabilities. The aim 
is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with 
and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best 
Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment 
for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
  Research shows that participation in activities involving both people 
with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results 
in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in 
schools.
  This bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted 
her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual 
disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the 
development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which 
celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including 
those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for 
participation and inclusion.
  In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and 
Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies 
program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award 
competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive 
participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports 
and recreation programs.
  I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will 
continue our support for these important programs that promote the 
extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual 
disabilities as well as broader community inclusion.
  I urge all my colleagues to join with me and Senator Blunt in 
supporting this very worthy bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. 
        Cardin):
  S. 1088. A bill to provide increased funding for the reinsurance for 
early program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Retiree Health 
Coverage Protection Act to provide an additional $5 billion for the 
Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, EERP, to allow more employers to 
participate in the program. It will also further reduce the cost of 
retiree coverage.
  I worked with Sen. Stabenow to include the EERP program in the 
Affordable Care Act due to the erosion of employer-sponsored retiree 
coverage across the country. The percentage of large firms providing 
workers with retiree health coverage dropped from 66 percent in 1988 to 
29 percent in 2009.
  The ERRP helps to control health care costs and preserve coverage for 
early retirees and their families and has been remarkably successful in 
making retiree health insurance coverage more stable and affordable.
  Employers who participate in the program can receive a reinsurance 
reimbursement of up to 80 percent of catastrophic medical claims 
between $15,000 and $90,000 for their early retiree enrollees. The 
reimbursement is used to reduce the employer's health care costs and to 
lower premiums to retirees and their families. A study from Hewitt 
Associates estimates that the program will reduce the cost of retiree 
coverage from 25 to 35 percent, anywhere from $2,000 to $3,000 per 
retiree, per year.
  The program has garnered robust participation among a wide range of 
retiree health plan sponsors from all major sectors of our economy. 
Earlier this month, it was announced that 5,515 plan sponsors have been 
approved to participate in the program and nearly $2.5 billion 
reinsurance reimbursements have been paid to 1,728 participating 
retiree plans.
  The ERRP has been so successful that the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, CMS, announced it could no longer accept 
applications for the program after May 6 because the overwhelming 
response would exhaust the $5 billion in appropriated program

[[Page S3432]]

funding. Until additional insurance market reforms are enacted in 2014, 
we should build on the demonstrated success of ERRP.
  Senator Stabenow, Senator Blumenthal, and I are working together to 
preserve insurance coverage for millions of retirees who rely on on 
health coverage through their former employers before they become 
eligible for Medicare. That is why we are introducing legislation, the 
Retiree Health Coverage Protection Act, to provide an additional $5 
billion in ERRP funding. This additional funding could be used to allow 
more employers to participate in the program and to further reduce the 
cost of retiree coverage.
  Over 180 employers who offer retiree health benefits in Massachusetts 
have taken advantage of this program. These public and private sector 
employers in the Commonwealth represent various entities, including: 
city governments, hospitals, colleges, and financial service 
institutions.
  I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been 
integral to the development of the Retiree Health Coverage Protection 
Act and who have endorsed our legislation today, including the American 
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO, 
the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of State, 
County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, Families USA, the 
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural 
Implement Workers of America, UAW, and the National Education 
Association, NEA.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to protect 
and stabilize retiree health coverage by ensuring the ERRP has adequate 
funding. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 1089. A bill to provide for the introduction of pay-for-
performance compensation mechanisms into contracts of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs with community-based outpatient clinics for the 
provision of health care services, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans 
Health Care Improvement Act of 2011.
  As we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs strives to provide 
the best possible health care for our nation's heroes. However, it has 
come to my attention that the quality of care provided to our nation's 
veterans remains inconsistent among community-based outpatient clinics. 
Some of these clinics are operated by private health care providers 
under VA contracts. These VA-contracted health care providers are 
compensated for their work at community-based outpatient clinics on a 
capitated basis, which means they are essentially paid based on how 
many new veterans they see during a pay period. These firms are 
therefore rewarded for the number of veterans they sign up, not for the 
quality of treatment provided to our veterans. While I am not opposed 
to capitation per se, I am concerned current VA policy provides 
contractors with the wrong incentives. Contracted health care providers 
should have incentives to provide the best possible care for veterans, 
not simply get as many veterans as possible through their doors.
  As a result of the capitated system, it has been reported that too 
many of our nation's heroes have faced difficulties at these clinics in 
scheduling appointments, have suffered from neglect or have received 
substandard health care. This occurred under the last administration 
and I am concerned it may be continuing in the current one.
  As such, I am reintroducing the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, 
which attempts to fix the way VA-contracted health care providers are 
compensated at clinics. This bill would require the VA to begin to 
introduce a pay-for-performance compensation plan for contractors, 
thereby gradually incentivizing a higher quality of care for veterans 
seen at privately-administered community-based outpatient clinics.
  This bill gives the VA the flexibility to begin to implement such a 
system through a pilot program and leaves the VA the discretion as to 
how to adopt and best implement the pay-for-performance standards. In 
this respect, the bill defers to the VA on how best to execute these 
changes. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure.
  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. 1089

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Health Care 
     Improvement Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Veterans of the Armed Forces have made tremendous 
     sacrifices in the defense of freedom and liberty.
       (2) Congress recognizes these great sacrifices and 
     reaffirms America's strong commitment to its veterans.
       (3) As part of the on-going congressional effort to 
     recognize the sacrifices made by America's veterans, Congress 
     has dramatically increased funding for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for veterans health care in the years since 
     September 11, 2001.
       (4) Part of the funding for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for veterans health care is allocated toward 
     community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
       (5) Many CBOCs are administered by private contractors.
       (6) CBOCs administered by private contractors operate on a 
     capitated basis.
       (7) Some current contracts for CBOCs may create an 
     incentive for contractors to sign up as many veterans as 
     possible, without ensuring timely access to high quality 
     health care for such veterans.
       (8) The top priorities for CBOCs should be to provide 
     quality health care and patient satisfaction for America's 
     veterans.
       (9) The Department of Veterans Affairs currently tracks the 
     quality of patient care through its Computerized Patient 
     Record System. However, fees paid to contractors are not 
     currently adjusted automatically to reflect the quality of 
     care provided to patients.
       (10) A pay-for-performance payment model offers a promising 
     approach to health care delivery by aligning the payment of 
     fees to contractors with the achievement of better health 
     outcomes for patients.
       (11) The Department of Veterans Affairs should begin to 
     emphasize pay-for-performance in its contracts with CBOCs.

     SEC. 3. PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY-BASED 
                   OUTPATIENT HEALTH CARE CLINICS.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to Congress a plan to introduce pay-for-
     performance measures into contracts which compensate 
     contractors of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     provision of health care services through community-based 
     outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
       (b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) Measures to ensure that contracts of the Department for 
     the provision of health care services through CBOCs begin to 
     utilize pay-for-performance compensation mechanisms for 
     compensating contractors for the provision of such services 
     through such clinics, including mechanisms as follows:
       (A) To provide incentives for clinics that provide high-
     quality health care.
       (B) To provide incentives to better assure patient 
     satisfaction.
       (C) To impose penalties (including termination of contract) 
     for clinics that provide substandard care.
       (2) Mechanisms to collect and evaluate data on the outcomes 
     of the services generally provided by CBOCs in order to 
     provide for an assessment of the quality of health care 
     provided by such clinics.
       (3) Mechanisms to eliminate abuses in the provision of 
     health care services by CBOCs under contracts that continue 
     to utilize capitated-basis compensation mechanisms for 
     compensating contractors.
       (4) Mechanisms to ensure that veterans are not denied care 
     or face undue delays in receiving care.
       (c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall commence the 
     implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) unless 
     Congress enacts an Act, not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the submittal of the plan, prohibiting or modifying 
     implementation of the plan. In implementing the plan, the 
     Secretary may initially carry out one or more pilot programs 
     to assess the feasability and advisability of mechanisms 
     under the plan.
       (d) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the 
     recommendations of the Secretary as to the feasability and 
     advisability of utilizing pay-for-performance compensation 
     mechanisms in the provision of health care services by the 
     Department by means in addition to CBOCs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
  S. 1093. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that solar energy property need not be located on the property with 
respect to

[[Page S3433]]

which it is generating electricity in order to qualify for the 
residential energy efficient property credit; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill 
that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of my constituents, a bill 
that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create jobs: 
the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods Act, or SUN Act.
  Over the last three years, I have been travelling across Colorado as 
part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their 
innovative policy ideas to create jobs. The SUN Act comes directly from 
visiting with Coloradans.
  This bill will help bring commonsense to our tax code, get government 
out of the way of developing solar energy, and spur job growth in every 
community across the United States.
  I installed solar panels on my own home several years ago to take 
advantage of the strong Colorado sun. However, I understand this option 
is not available for all American families who want to receive their 
home's energy needs from solar power. There can be difficulties 
attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more 
neighborhoods and towns are creating so called ``community solar'' 
projects.
  Instead of affixing solar panels to every roof on the block, an 
increasing number of Americans have decided to place those same solar 
panels all together in one open and unobstructed sunny area near their 
homes. By grouping solar panels together, it reduces the cost by up to 
30 percent compared to installing each panel on every roof separately. 
Whether used by neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or 
developed by our rural energy cooperatives, creating these group solar 
projects to share energy is a great way to lower the cost of developing 
solar energy.
  But there is a problem: our tax code is getting in the way. It 
discourages neighborhood solar projects by requiring that solar panels 
must actually be on your property instead of allowing neighbors and 
others to partner on community solar projects. This discourages 
innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternate energy 
source.
  The SUN Act would make a small change to the tax code that would no 
longer constrain this innovative solar energy development. By 
eliminating the requirement that solar panels be on one individual's 
property, it allows Americans to work together on community projects 
where each individual can claim a tax credit. This simple solution 
makes it easier to adopt and use clean, renewable energy.
  What excites me about this bill is that it will create jobs for 
Americans in every neighborhood where these community solar projects 
are developed. This bill reduces barriers that currently prevent 
Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets, and creates 
a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their 
home.
  Mr. Presdient, 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. 1093

       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 ``Solar Uniting Neighborhoods 
     (SUN) Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO LOCATION OF SOLAR 
                   ELECTRIC PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25D(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified solar electric property expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified solar electric 
     property expenditure' means an expenditure for property which 
     uses solar energy to generate electricity--
       ``(i) for use in a dwelling unit located in the United 
     States and used as a residence by the taxpayer, or
       ``(ii) which enters the electrical grid at any point which 
     is not more than 50 miles from the point at which such a 
     dwelling unit used as a residence by the taxpayer is 
     connected to such grid, but only if such property is not used 
     in a trade or business of the taxpayer or in an activity with 
     respect to which a deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under 
     section 162 or paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.
       ``(B) Recapture.--The Secretary may provide for the 
     recapture of the credit under this subsection with respect to 
     any property described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) 
     which ceases to satisfy the requirements of such clause.''.
       (b) Limitation With Respect to Off-site Solar Property.--
     Subsection (b) of section 25D of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Maximum credit for off-site solar property.--In the 
     case of any qualified solar electric property expenditure 
     which is such an expenditure by reason of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (d)(2)(A), the credit allowed under subsection (a) 
     (determined without regard to subsection (c)) for any taxable 
     year with respect to all such expenditures shall not exceed 
     $50,000.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO LOCATION OF SOLAR WATER 
                   HEATING PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 25D(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The term'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Off-site property.--
       ``(i) In general.--Such term shall include an expenditure 
     for property described in subparagraph (A) notwithstanding--

       ``(I) whether such property is located on the same site as 
     the dwelling unit for which the energy generated from such 
     property is used, and
       ``(II) whether the energy generated by such property 
     displaces the energy used to heat the water load or space 
     heating load for the dwelling, so long as any such 
     displacement from such property occurs not more than 50 miles 
     from such dwelling unit,

     but only if such property is not used in a trade or business 
     of the taxpayer or in an activity with respect to which a 
     deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under section 162 or 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.
       ``(ii) Recapture.--The Secretary may provide for the 
     recapture of the credit under this subsection with respect to 
     any property described in clause (i) which ceases to satisfy 
     the requirements of such clause.''.
       (b) Limitation With Respect to Off-site Solar Property.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 25D(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, as added by section 2, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Maximum credit for off-site solar property.--In the 
     case of--
       ``(A) any qualified solar electric property expenditure 
     which is such an expenditure by reason of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (d)(2)(A), and
       ``(B) any qualified solar water heating property 
     expenditure which is such an expenditure by reason of 
     subparagraph (B) of subsection (d)(1),

     the credit allowed under subsection (a) (determined without 
     regard to subsection (c)) for any taxable year with respect 
     to all such expenditures shall not exceed $50,000.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EXCLUSION OF INCOME FROM QUALIFYING SALES.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 is 
     amended by inserting before section 140 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 139F. INCOME FROM QUALIFYING SALES OF SOLAR 
                   ELECTRICITY.

       ``For any taxable year, gross income of any person shall 
     not include any gain from the sale or exchange to the 
     electrical grid during such taxable year of electricity which 
     is generated by property with respect to which any qualified 
     solar electric property expenditures are eligible to be taken 
     into account under section 25D, but only to the extent such 
     gain does not exceed the value of the electricity used at 
     such residence during such taxable year.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by redesignating the section added to such Code by 
     section 10108(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act as section 139E, and by locating such section 
     immediately after section 139D of such Code (as added by 
     section 9021(a) of such Act) and immediately before section 
     139F of such Code (as added by this section).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking all that follows after the item relating to section 
     139C and inserting the following items:

``Sec. 139D. Indian health care benefits.
``Sec. 139E. Free choice vouchers.
``Sec. 139F. Income from qualifying sales of solar electricity.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. 
        Sanders):
  S. 1095. A bill to include geriatrics and gerontology in the 
definition of ``primary health services'' under the

[[Page S3434]]

National Health Service Corps program; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this 
May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older 
Americans to live longer and healthier lives.
  Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 
million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now 
if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet 
the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will 
face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans.
  Health care providers with the necessary training to give older 
Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark 
report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine 
concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe 
workforce shortages in the care of older adults.
  According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S. 
physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In 
addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of 
advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment 
and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to 
low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate 
training.
  Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is 
an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right 
now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the 
necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best 
possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American 
families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life 
for their older relatives and friends.
  It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these 
issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and 
Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This 
legislation would help attract and retain trained health care 
professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality 
care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them 
with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the 
National Health Service Corps.
  Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or 
gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance 
practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation 
would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas 
with a shortage of these important health professionals.
  Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills 
to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's 
future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward 
creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently 
needs.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet 
our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Cardin, and Mr. Wicker):
  S. 1096. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to, and utilization of, bone mass measurement benefits 
under the Medicare part B program by extending the minimum payment 
amount for bone mass measurement under such program through 2013; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Stabenow 
of Michigan to introduce The Preservation of Access to Osteoporosis 
Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2011. The companion bill in 
the U.S. House of Representatives is being introduced by Representative 
Michael Burgess with Representative Shelley Berkley.
  Since 1997, Congress has recognized the necessity of osteoporosis 
prevention by standardizing coverage for bone mass measurement under 
the Medicare program. At that time, I actively pursued inclusion of the 
language in the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization bill as 
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Later, with the passage of 
health care reform legislation, Congress enacted a temporary solution 
to the problem caused by Medicare cuts in reimbursement rates for 
osteoporosis screening tests through bone mass measurements. The 
osteoporosis screening provision in the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act returned the Medicare reimbursement level to 70 
percent of the 2006 Medicare reimbursement rate.
  Regrettably, this provision will expire at the end of the calendar 
year. For Medicare beneficiaries, this sunset means that access to 
osteoporosis diagnosis, prevention, and treatment will once again be in 
jeopardy as Medicare reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening 
will plummet by about 50 percent on January 1, 2012. Moreover, without 
adequate Medicare reimbursement rates, we most certainly risk losing 
the battle for improving access to bone density testing as well as 
preventing debilitating and costly bone fractures--an outcome we can 
ill afford.
  A disease of reduced bone mass that ultimately results in bones 
becoming brittle and fracturing more easily, osteoporosis constitutes a 
major public health threat, affecting 44 million Americans who either 
have the disease or are at risk for developing it due to low bone 
density. Osteoporosis is especially prevalent among women, who 
represent an incredible 71 percent of all cases. In fact, in their 
lifetime, one in two women and as many as one in four men over the age 
of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's 
risk of an osteoporotic fracture is greater than her annual combined 
incidence of breast cancer, heart attack, and stroke, making access and 
affordability absolutely imperative.
  I want to stress to my colleagues that while there is no cure for 
osteoporosis, it is largely preventable and thousands of fractures 
could be avoided through early detection and treatment of low bone 
mass. New drug therapies have been proven to reduce fractures and to 
rebuild bone mass. At the same time, a bone mass measurement is 
necessary prior to initiating any form of osteoporosis therapy or 
prophylaxis.
  Bone mass measurements can be used to determine the status of a 
person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These 
tests are safe, painless, accurate, and quick. DXA, dual energy x-ray 
absorptiometry, is recognized by the World Health Organization, the 
U.S. Surgeon General, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services as the ``gold standard'' for diagnosing osteoporosis.
  A technique called vertebral fracture assessment or VFA can identify 
spinal fractures and show abnormally shaped vertebra. Bone density 
screenings have been shown to result in 37 percent reduction in hip 
fracture rates according to a 2008 study by Kaiser in Southern 
California. Reimbursement under the Medicare program for DXA screening 
is scheduled to be reduced by 62 percent by 2013 and VFA will be 
reduced by 30 percent by 2013. The reduction in Medicare reimbursement 
will almost certainly discourage physicians from continuing to provide 
convenient access to DXA screening or VFA in their offices.

  Since \2/3\ of all DXA scans are performed in non-facility settings, 
such as physician offices, patient access to bone mass measurement will 
continue to be severely compromised if DXA scans are not readily 
available to all patients. Our bill would renew the current Medicare 
levels for reimbursement relief to preserve access to DXA screenings, 
improve patient care, and prevent unnecessary costs to the Medicare 
program through reduced expenditures on fractures.
  Osteoporosis, which is responsible for more than two million 
fractures annually, is a silent disease that often goes undetected 
until a fall or an injury results in a broken bone. Our senior 
population is at greatest risk, with 89 percent of fracture costs 
attributed to individuals who are 65 years of age or older. Perhaps the 
most tragic consequences occur with elderly individuals who fall and 
suffer osteoporotic hip fractures.
  Of those senior citizens suffering hip fractures, 12-13 percent will 
die within 6 months following the injury and 20 percent will require 
nursing home care . . . often for the rest of their lives. Moreover, 
the Medicaid budget bears the cost of nursing home admissions

[[Page S3435]]

for hip fractures for low-income Americans. In general, osteoporotic 
fractures result in an estimated annual cost of $19 billion to our 
health care system.
  I remain hopeful that one day researchers will discover a cure for 
this silent and debilitating disease. In the meantime, early detection 
continues to be our best weapon against osteoporosis, because it is 
through early detection that we can best thwart the progress of 
osteoporosis by initiating preventive measures to combat bone loss.
  Continuing our current Medicare reimbursement rate for osteoporosis 
screening tests satisfies the triple aim of better care, improved 
health, and lower costs. I hope that our colleagues will join Senator 
Stabenow and me in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Alexander, Mr. Portman, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Johnson 
        of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Burr, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Coats, Ms. Ayotte, and 
        Mr. Blunt)
  S. 1100. A bill to amend title 41, United States Code, to prohibit 
inserting politics into the Federal acquisition process by prohibiting 
the submission of political contribution information as a condition of 
receiving a Federal contract; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping 
Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011. This bill would 
prohibit Federal agencies from collecting or using information about 
political contributions made by businesses or individuals that seek to 
do business with the Federal Government. My bill would keep politics 
out of Federal contracting.
  I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Minority Leader Mitch 
McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Rules Committee Ranking Member 
Lamar Alexander, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight Ranking Member 
Rob Portman, as well as our colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ron 
Johnson, Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, John 
Cornyn, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, John Thune, John 
Barrasso, Roger Wicker, Mike Johanns, Dan Coats, Roy Blunt, and Kelly 
Ayotte.
  We learned in April that the Obama administration was seriously 
considering requiring Federal agencies to collect information about 
campaign contributions by companies, some of their employees, and even 
their directors as a condition of competing for Federal contracts. This 
is simply shocking. It amounts to intentionally injecting political 
considerations into the Federal contracting process. What possible good 
can come from linking political information to a process which must be 
grounded solely and unequivocally on providing the very best value to 
American taxpayers?
  The trust of the American people in the integrity of our Federal 
contract award process depends on ensuring that the government's ``best 
value'' determination is free from political bias. It is unfathomable 
that this administration would even consider a move that would inject 
politics into the process, or create a perception that politics is 
something to be considered in selecting the winners and losers among 
businesses vying for Federal contracts.
  In addition to threatening the integrity of the procurement process, 
the draft Executive Order would also chill the First Amendment rights 
of individuals to contribute to the political causes or candidates they 
choose.
  Were the President to issue such an order, undoubtedly we would see a 
chilling effect on political activity. Many contractors would fear that 
the success or viability of their business could be threatened if they 
support the causes or candidates opposed by the administration.
  If the collection of such data were required, American businesses 
would be forced to think twice before contributing to political 
candidates or causes.
  In true Orwellian fashion, the draft executive order suggests that 
the only way to keep politics out of the contracting process is to 
include political information with every contract offer. If the White 
House gets its way, Federal agencies would have to collect information 
about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of 
potential contractors before any contract could be awarded.
  This EO would be far reaching and would apply not only to 
contributions made by the contracting company but also to those made by 
its directors, officers, and affiliates.
  These requirements would also apply retroactively to contributions 
made two years before the submission of an offer. Just think about--
political donations made years before a contract is even contemplated 
would have to be shared with government officials.
  By contrast, my bill reaffirms the fundamental principle that federal 
contracts should be awarded free from political considerations and be 
based on the best value to the taxpayers. Specifically, the bill would 
prohibit a Federal agency from collecting the political information of 
contractors and their employees as part of any type of request for 
proposal in anticipation of any type of contract.
  It would prohibit the agency from using political information 
received from any source as a factor in the source selection decision 
process for new contracts, or in making decisions related to 
modifications or extensions of existing contracts; and prohibit 
databases designed to be used by contracting officers to determine the 
responsibility of bidders from including political information, except 
for information on contractors' violations already permitted by law.
  Whether or not a prospective contractor agrees with the political 
views of this or any other administration should be completely 
irrelevant.
  Businesses that have supported conservative causes or whose directors 
have contributed to Republican candidates should not have to fear that 
bidding for Federal work would be a waste of their effort.
  Similarly, in the next Republican administration, contributors to 
Democratic causes and candidates should not be intimidated from 
competing for contracts. The result of such considerations would be 
less competition for Federal contracts and thus higher prices for goods 
and services procured by the Federal Government.
  The President and the Federal contracting system must not discourage 
businesses from competing for government contracts. At a time when the 
budget is under severe constraints, the administration should be 
seeking to expand the pool of bidders, not shrink it.
  In April, 27 Senators wrote to the President to express our 
opposition to this ill-conceived proposal. We pointed out that 
``political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective 
contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if 
the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration. No White 
House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the 
causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government 
contract. And no American should have to worry about whether his or her 
political activities or support will affect the ability to get or keep 
a federal contract * * *''
  I also joined three other colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the 
President in May stressing the Executive Order's impact on the Federal 
contracting process and the already stretched-thin Federal acquisition 
workforce.
  I have not received a response to either letter.
  It simply doesn't pass the straight face test for this administration 
to suggest that this dramatic change in federal contracting is needed 
to remove politics from the contracting process. In fact, even the 
administration's chief procurement official recently admitted at a 
House hearing that there was no evidence of any problem of political 
corruption in the contracting process that would warrant correction 
with this type of new Executive Order.
  The reality is just the opposite: requiring disclosure of one's 
political activities and leanings as part of that process would likely 
ensure that politics would play a role in the award of federal 
contracts.
  If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements 
also apply to organizations receiving Federal grants?
  In fact, campaign contributions to candidates and political 
committees already are required to be reported to the

[[Page S3436]]

Federal Election Commission, and with a click of a mouse, can be viewed 
on FEC.gov.
  Americans should get the best value in the marketplace and not a 
partisan policy that stifles First Amendment rights, politicizes the 
contracting process, and reduces competition in Federal contracting. I 
am pleased to note that my colleagues in the House of Representatives, 
Representatives Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, and Sam Graves agree. Today 
they have introduced an identical measure in that chamber. And last 
night, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill 
that would prohibit Federal agencies from requiring contractors to 
reveal contributions to political campaigns.
  Keep politics out of Federal contracting. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 1101. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to approve waives under the Medicaid Program under title XIX of the 
Social Security Act that are related to State provider taxes that 
exempt certain retirement communities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that 
certain Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Life Care 
Communities are required to pay a provider tax despite the fact that 
they provide no beds and no services that are certified under the 
Medicaid program. Thus, these facilities are paying a tax and receiving 
no benefit. The Department of Health and Human Services currently 
provides a waiver for this fee, but the approval for the waiver is not 
a foregone conclusion. This is costly to those communities who provide 
for themselves and who do not depend on government programs at all. For 
these reasons, Senator Mark Pryor and I are introducing this 
legislation requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
approve waivers sought by states in relation to Continuing Care 
Retirement Communities and Life Care Communities which have no beds 
that are certified to provide medical assistance under title XIX of the 
Social Security Act or that do not provide services for which payment 
may be made under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1101

       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 ``Provider Tax Administrative 
     Simplification Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PROVIDER TAX RULE EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN CONTINUING 
                   CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES.

       In the case of a State that has a provider tax that does 
     not apply to continuing care retirement communities or life 
     care communities (as such terms are used for purposes of 
     section 1917(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396p(g)) that have no beds that are certified to provide 
     medical assistance (as such term is defined under section 
     1905(a) of such Act) under title XIX of the Social Security 
     Act or that do not provide services for which payment may be 
     made under title XIX of the Social Security Act, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall approve a waiver 
     under section 433.68(e)(2)(iii) of title 42 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations regardless of whether the Secretary 
     determines that the State satisfies the requirements of 
     section 433.68(e)(2)(iii)(B) of such title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 1102. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, with respect 
to certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the past year, students in Illinois 
have told me their stories of leaving some for-profit colleges with 
mountains of student loan debt and no job prospects. The students who 
find themselves in this terrible situation often end up defaulting on 
their loans. One quarter of students who took out Federal loans to 
attend for-profit colleges defaulted within three years of starting 
repayment. Compare that to 11 percent at public colleges and 8 percent 
at private nonprofit colleges.
  The situation for students who take out private student loans to 
attend for-profit schools can be even worse. A study by the College 
Board found that students at for-profit schools, unable to get enough 
government aid to pay their tuition turn to private loans much more 
than students at traditional schools.
  Many large for-profit colleges have begun making loans directly to 
their students. This private lending can be a boon for the schools. It 
keeps students in school. It helps the college meet its ``90/10'' 
requirement, which keeps the student aid flowing.
  Disturbingly, some of the for-profit colleges making these loans do 
not expect to collect them easily. Corinthian Colleges Executive Vice 
President and Chief Financial Officer Ken Ord stated in the February 
2010 investor call that they anticipate a 56 percent to 58 percent 
default rate on an estimated $150 million in internal student lending. 
Just last month, Ken Ord stated that Corinthian Colleges will seek to 
nearly double this loan volume.
  For-profit colleges like Corinthian are making private loans to 
students knowing that a majority of the students will struggle to make 
payments. These companies make significant profits from federal 
financial aid programs and are able to write off these loans.
  This is a disaster for students. These are private student loans with 
interest rates and fees that can be as onerous as credit cards. There 
are reports of private loans with variable interest rates reaching 18 
percent. Unlike Federal student loans, there are few consumer 
protections available for private student loans. Some students who take 
out private loans find themselves trapped under an enormous amount of 
debt that they cannot escape. Because of a 2005 change to the 
bankruptcy law, they are stuck with this debt for the rest of their 
lives.
  Today, along with Senator Franken and Senator Whitehouse, I am 
introducing a bill that will restore fairness for these students and 
others who find themselves buried in private student loan debt. Our 
bill, the Fairness for Struggling Students Act, will allow borrowers of 
private student loans to discharge those loans in bankruptcy, just as 
other types of private debt can be discharged. Representatives Cohen 
and Davis are introducing a similar bill in the House.
  Before 2005, private student loans issued by for-profit lenders were 
appropriately treated like credit card debt and other similar types of 
unsecured consumer debt in bankruptcy. In 2005, a provision was added 
to law to protect the investments of private lenders that extend 
private credit to students. The industry has boomed over the past 
decade. Private student loan volume last year was $8.5 billion.
  Today, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will give students who 
find themselves in dire financial straits a chance at a new beginning. 
My bill restores the bankruptcy law, as it pertains to private student 
loans, to the statute in place before the law was amended in 2005. 
Under this legislation, privately issued student loans will once again 
be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
  The bankruptcy law was designed to give debtors in severe financial 
distress a chance for meaningful relief. The current bankruptcy law 
unjustly punishes men and women who have tried to improve their lives 
by pursuing a higher education and all too often became victims of 
predatory private student lenders or predatory for-profit colleges. It 
is time to restore fairness for student borrowers. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1102

       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 ``Fairness for Struggling 
     Students Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.

       Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows 
     through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``dependents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan 
     made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or made 
     under any program

[[Page S3437]]

     funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or an 
     obligation to repay funds received from a governmental unit 
     as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Chambliss):
  S. 1103. A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this month, the President requested 
that Congress provide a limited exception to the statutory limit on the 
service of the FBI Director in order to allow Robert Mueller to 
continue his service for up to two additional years, until September 
2013. I spoke with the President about his request, and understand his 
desire for continuity and stability in our national security leadership 
team at a time of great challenge and heightened threat concerns.
  On May 12, the President explained in a statement: ``Given the 
ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership 
transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central 
Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is 
critical at this time.'' It is for that reason, along with his 
confidence in Director Mueller, that the President has made this 
request of us. The President has asked us ``to join together in 
extending that leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and 
security.''
  Since the attack on September 11, 2001, I have spoken often of the 
need for us all to join together. When I spoke to the Senate about the 
successful operation against Osama bin Laden, I urged all Americans to 
support our President in his continuing efforts to protect our Nation 
and keep Americans safe. I reiterated my hope that Americans would 
stand shoulder-to-shoulder, as we did in the weeks and months 
immediately following the September 11 attacks, unified in our resolve 
to keep our Nation secure. And I urged Congress to join together for 
the good of the country and all Americans. This is one of those times 
that we must join together.
  We face a time of heightened threats, particularly when experts are 
so concerned about possible reprisal attacks by al Qaeda. Indeed, most 
Americans share a concern that al Qaeda will try to strike back. So now 
is not a time for obstruction or delay in considering the President's 
request to maintain continuity and stability in his national security 
team.
  We have an opportunity now to set aside partisanship and come 
together to work with our President to keep America safe. While the 
threat from al Qaeda continues, and as the President makes necessary 
shifts in his national security team, I appreciate why President Obama 
has proposed that we continue the service of President Bush's appointee 
to the important leadership position of Director of the FBI. I 
appreciate Director Mueller's willingness to continue in service to the 
Nation. This was not Bob Mueller's idea or request. This is the 
President's request and, as a patriotic American, Director Mueller is 
willing to give another two years in service to a grateful Nation.
  The Bureau has seen significant transformation since September 11, 
2001. Director Mueller has handled this evolution with professionalism 
and focus. The FBI plays a critical role in our efforts to protect 
national security. Attorney General Holder said recently: ``The United 
States faces ongoing threats from terrorist intent on attacking us both 
at home and abroad, and it is crucial that the FBI have sustained, 
strong leadership to confront that threat.'' He is right.
  I was encouraged to see the reports that Senator McConnell, the 
Senate Republican leader, supports the President's request. I 
appreciate the comments by Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary 
Committee, supporting the President's decision, and stating his 
agreement that ``it is important to maintain continuity for our 
intelligence community during this transition period.''
  I am pleased that Senator Grassley, our ranking Republican on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, has joined as a cosponsor of a bill to 
extend the service of Director Mueller, who Senator Grassley said has 
``proven his ability to run the FBI'' in these ``extraordinary times.'' 
I am also pleased that Senators Feinstein and Chambliss, the Chairman 
and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are joining as 
cosponsors of the bill. We recognize the extraordinary circumstances 
confronting the President, and support his request for a short 
extension of Director Mueller's service. But we also all agree that 
this needs to be a one-time exception and this measure we join together 
to introduce today is intended to be a one-time exception and not a 
permanent extension.
  I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001 when 
President Bush nominated Bob Mueller. The President nominated him on 
July 18; the Judiciary Committee received his paperwork on July 24; and 
we held two days of hearings on July 30 and July 31. The Judiciary 
Committee voted on his nomination on August 2 and the Senate confirmed 
him that same day. It is already as long from the day that President 
Obama made his request for the short extension of his term of service 
as it took us in 2001 to hold hearings and for the Senate to confirm 
Bob Mueller to a 10-year term as FBI Director. We must not delay action 
any longer.
  Bob Mueller served for three years in the United States Marine Corps; 
led a rifle platoon in Vietnam; and earned a Bronze Star, two Navy 
Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of 
Gallantry. This is a man who served as the United States Attorney in 
both Massachusetts and Northern California, as the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, and the 
acting Deputy Attorney General at the beginning of the George W. Bush 
administration. This is a man who left a lucrative position in private 
practice to return to law enforcement after he had served in higher 
positions, by joining the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of 
Columbia as a line prosecutor in the homicide section.
  The President could have nominated the next director of the FBI, 
someone who could serve for the next 10 years, until 2021. That is 
someone who would serve through the presidential elections in 2012, 
2016 and 2020, and into the period long after his own presidency. 
Instead, he has chosen to ask Congress to extend the term of service of 
a proven leader for a brief period, given the extenuating circumstances 
facing our country.
  I emphasize that this is not Bob Mueller's request, it is the 
President's. Bob Mueller has served tirelessly and selflessly for 10 
years, and is undoubtedly ready to begin the next phase of his life. 
But Bob has characteristically answered duty's call and indicated his 
willingness to continue his service. We should fulfill our duty, as 
well, and join together without delay to secure the continuity and 
stability that is demanded at this time, and that is needed to keep our 
country safe. It is time for us to join together and act on the 
President's request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. 1103

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE INCUMBENT DIRECTOR OF 
                   THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

       Section 1101 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (28 U.S.C. 532 note) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) With respect to the individual who is the incumbent 
     in the office of the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation on the date of enactment of this subsection--
       ``(1) subsection (b) shall be applied --
       ``(A) in the first sentence, by substituting `12 years' for 
     `ten years'; and
       ``(B) in the second sentence, by substituting `12-year 
     term' for `10-year' term; and
       ``(2) the third sentence of subsection (b) shall not 
     apply.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is 
on the front line in defending our country from terrorists, spies, and 
criminals. The FBI has a long history dating back over 100 years. The 
FBI started as an agency formed during President Theodore Roosevelt's 
administration when seven Secret Service agents were sent to the 
Justice Department to create a new investigative bureau. Since that 
start, the FBI has developed into a

[[Page S3438]]

cadre of talented agents who have pioneered new investigative tools 
advancing law enforcement across the country.
  For example, the Bureau agents developed advancements in forensic 
science, such as fingerprint technology and DNA analysis, now utilized 
to build investigations from the smallest of clues obtained at crime 
scenes. Such advancements have allowed the FBI to combat organized 
crime and international terrorists across the country and around the 
globe.
  Despite these successes, the FBI has also had its share of failures. 
These include maintaining secret files on elected officials, the 
investigation of civil rights leaders, the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and 
Waco, missing internal spy Robert Hanssen, the corruption and misuse of 
mob informants in the Boston field office, and the failure to connect 
the dots leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The FBI has also had problems 
in failing to manage high-profile projects, such as the procurement of 
information technology upgrades. They have failed to address personnel 
problems, such as the double standard for discipline that the Justice 
Department inspector general found agents believe exists. And there 
were the serious issues that required reform at the FBI crime lab. 
These are black marks on the history of the FBI.
  I have been an outspoken critic of the FBI's culture for many years 
because of its unwillingness to own up to mistakes. Too often, 
officials sought to protect the agency's reputation at the expense of 
the truth. My concerns are magnified by the way the FBI treats internal 
whistleblowers who come forward and report fraud and abuse. All too 
often, instead of owning up to problems and fixing them, they circle 
the wagons and shoot the messenger. The FBI is all too often the exact 
opposite of an agency that can accept constructive criticism, from both 
those inside and out.
  That said, I must give credit to the FBI when it is due. Following 
the tragedy of 9/11, the FBI has worked to fix the problems that have 
occurred. There has been a top-to-bottom transformation at the FBI 
moving it from a pure law enforcement agency to a national security 
agency. Chief among those lending this transformation has been FBI 
Director Robert Mueller. Sworn in as Director just 1 week prior to 9/
11, Director Mueller has led the charge to ensure that the FBI is 
updated into a modern national security agency. This transformation 
includes upgrading the workforce from an agent-driven model to one that 
includes an ever-increasing number of intelligence analysts. Director 
Mueller has taken the transformation head-on and has done an admirable 
job. I applaud the hard work that has been done, but more work remains. 
That is why we are here today introducing legislation that will extend 
the term of FBI Director Mueller for 2 additional years. I join my 
colleagues from the Judiciary and Select Intelligence Committees in 
introducing a one-time statutory exemption that will extend the term of 
FBI Director Mueller's term by 2 years. I do this recognizing the good 
work of Director Mueller and against a backdrop of heightened alert to 
terrorist attack following the death of Osama bin Laden. However, I do 
this with a heavy heart because I believe the 10-year term is a good 
thing for both the FBI and the country.
  Currently, the law requires that the FBI Director be limited to one 
single 10-year term. This limitation was put in place in 1976 following 
a 1968 change in the law making the Director a Presidential 
appointment. Congress included this term for two main reasons: one, to 
ensure that the Director was insulated from political influence of the 
President; two, to ensure that no one individual serves as FBI Director 
for such a long period of time to amass too much power. The inclusion 
of a term was part of a series of reforms to government agencies 
following the Watergate scandal and following the death of former 
Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had served a 48-year term.
  The current term limit has been in place for 35 years. In that time, 
no Director of the FBI has ever served an entire 10-year term and no 
President has ever suggested the term limit should be extended. 
However, on September 4, 2011, FBI Director Mueller would be the first 
to reach the 10-year mark. President Obama has indicated it is his 
desire to have Director Mueller stay on for an additional 2 years and 
has asked us to extend the term.
  While I join my colleagues in introducing this extension, I have also 
asked that we have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to 
address this extension. There are significant constitutional concerns 
that must be addressed, such as whether Congress has the authority to 
extend the term of a sitting appointee. A concern of this magnitude 
needs to be discussed in a formal hearing. Additionally, this would be 
the first time the Congress will be extending the term of the Director 
in over 35 years and nearly 37 years since a hearing was held on the 
term of the Director in the Judiciary Committee.
  Director Mueller has done an admirable job of reforming an agency 
under difficult circumstances. While I have my concerns with the 
precedent that this will set for future Directors--namely, that the 
term can be extended--I do think that making a one-time exception is 
warranted in this limited case and with the current existing threats. 
But I do not want this to become a regular occurrence. This legislation 
is narrowly tailored to ensure that the intent of Congress is to create 
only a one-time exception. Further, we will be holding a Judiciary 
Committee hearing in the near future to address this important, 
limited, one-time extension. Against that backdrop, I support this 
extension and look forward to an open debate and discussion surrounding 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1106. A bill to authorize Department of Defense support for 
programs on pro bono legal assistance for members of the Armed Forces; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Graham to 
introduce the Justice for Troops Act. This legislation offers a simple 
solution to a serious problem that affects the well-being of our troops 
and their families. Today, when service men and women face civil legal 
problems they often have no access to legal assistance. When these 
troops face such problems, like child custody issues, complications 
with leases, mortgage payments or credit card debt that should be 
protected under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or disputes over a 
bank account, they often have no access to legal assistance.
  Without representation, troops run the risk of losing custody of 
their children, being evicted from their home, or facing financial 
ruin. This is unjust, especially when there are many lawyers willing to 
volunteer their services for free. The Justice for Troops Act would 
solve this problem by connecting service men and women with pro bono 
lawyers. It would do so by authorizing the Department of Defense, DoD, 
to use up to $500,000 of funds already appropriated for operation and 
maintenance to support programs that make these connections and ensure 
that our troops have access to the legal representation they need.
  All branches of the military provide our service men and women with 
basic legal services on-base through legal assistance officers, Judge 
Advocate Generals, JAGs, but they generally cannot represent service 
members in court or provide legal assistance in other parts of the 
country. When troops encounter legal problems that JAGs are not able to 
handle, they are left on their own to find a lawyer. This burden can 
arise if a service member is stationed in one state, but his or her 
home, family, or bank accounts are located in another. On-base JAG 
officers are unable to help with bankruptcy, child support issues, and 
other legal challenges that arise in a different state. As the number 
of deployed troops has increased since 2001, the gap between their 
legal needs and the offerings of JAG offices has widened. In some 
cases, JAG officers have referred troops who cannot afford a lawyer to 
programs that connect them with pro bono lawyers. Other cases have been 
left unresolved, to the detriment of our troops, their families, and 
the readiness of our armed forces.
  Today, there are limited services available to help troops with legal 
problems that cannot be handled by JAGs, but they are unable to fully 
meet the growing need. Some law

[[Page S3439]]

school clinics, state bar associations, and the American Bar 
Association's Military Pro Bono Project connect active-duty military 
personnel and their families to free legal assistance beyond what 
military legal offices can offer. They maintain lists of attorneys who 
are willing to provide their services free of charge to service members 
and, in conjunction with the DoD, reach out to on-base JAG offices to 
encourage them to refer troops to their programs.
  Unfortunately, these programs have a long way to go to meet the 
increasing demand for their pro bono legal services, and too many 
troops still go without legal help. Furthermore, existing programs are 
limited in their ability to connect troops with pro bono lawyers 
because funding to support them is scarce. With access to only 
$500,000, pro bono projects would be able to build more connections, 
ensure that every JAG office knows how to refer service members to the 
programs, and grow their databases of pro bono lawyers. This small 
investment would be leveraged into providing free legal assistance to 
countless men and women who serve our country. We will no doubt enhance 
our military readiness by eliminating the stress and anxiety caused by 
legal problems.
  The Justice for Troops Act is supported by the Department of Defense, 
the Military Officers Association of America, the Southern Wisconsin 
Chapter of the Military Officers Association of America, the National 
Military Family Association, the National Guard Association of the 
United States, the Wisconsin National Guard Association, the 
Association of the US Army, the Air Force Association, and the Gold 
Star Wives of America.
  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. 1106

       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 ``Justice for Troops Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS ON PRO 
                   BONO LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES.

       (a) Support Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     provide support to one or more public or private programs 
     designed to connect attorneys who provide pro bono legal 
     assistance with members of the Armed Forces who are in need 
     of such assistance.
       (b) Financial Support.--
       (1) In general.--The support provided a program under 
     subsection (a) may include financial support of the program.
       (2) Limitation on amount.--The total amount of financial 
     support provided under subsection (a) in any fiscal year may 
     not exceed $500,000.
       (3) Funding.--Amounts for financial support under this 
     section shall be derived from amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the Department of Defense for operation and 
     maintenance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Casey):
  S. 1110. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to permit agencies to 
count certain contracts toward contracting goals; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business 
Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from 
Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me. 
Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is 
an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways 
to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of 
many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help 
promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street.
  This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that 
prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts 
toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a 
cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule 
was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the 
growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming 
agreements to compete for large government contracts.
  This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue. 
The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small 
businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make 
competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can 
meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group 
they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest 
government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government 
is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to 
make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses 
for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to 
ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with 
small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration 
as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes 
businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small 
businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill, 
an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming 
agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory 
obligations for small business set-asides.
  As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business 
Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to 
access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify 
and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9 
years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where 
contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the 
Federal Government gets the goods and services they need.
  This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small 
businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and 
other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Brown of 
        Ohio):
  S. 1117. A bill to amend section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to improve the health coverage tax credit, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of 
2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of 
jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care 
coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help 
American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are 
displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle-
class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010, 
an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC 
participants are very satisfied with the program.
  However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far 
too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this 
important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of 
thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have 
participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off 
workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still 
has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy 
provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some 
workers.
  I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how 
unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very 
frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been 
able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for 
people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have 
very limited income.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer 
advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as 
the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The 
bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many 
to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand 
eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes 
included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent 
to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA 
eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report

[[Page S3440]]

last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased 
after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the 
Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could 
afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly 
premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of 
monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions 
expired on February 13, 2011.
  As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on 
this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA 
Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's 
temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of 
affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95 
percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired.
  This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing 
limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under 
the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health 
insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance 
coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who 
previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to 
separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior 
Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the 
individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did 
not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from 
employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based 
coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered 
in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make 
matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections 
set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to 
vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO 
reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC 
recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times 
the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. 
The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by 
clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage 
within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual 
market plans to be community-rated.
  Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have 
access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what 
people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees 
had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or 
pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates 
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group 
option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have 
access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were 
used to when they were employed.
  Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month 
continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, 
displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous 
health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer 
protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting 
condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. 
Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three 
months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration 
has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health 
insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which 
usually is after separation from employment and after certification of 
TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot 
afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their 
jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the 
statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects 
this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage 
means three months prior to separation from employment.
  Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain 
eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree 
becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of 
Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy 
because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This 
technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage 
through their spouses or parents.
  Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and 
makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance 
coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low 
participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process 
and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during 
the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This 
legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows 
displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the 
HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for 
certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury 
Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the 
health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for 
advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be 
eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an 
important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current 
training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage 
when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an 
individual's ability to participate in training.
  As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment 
Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In 
West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of 
trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these 
individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and 
care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a 
significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit 
is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage 
during this very difficult transition.
  Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of 
thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to 
participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The 
GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the 
Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade-
displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon 
the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to 
make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals 
and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
pass this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Begich, Ms. 
        Snowe, and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 1119. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Marine Debris 
Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Trash Free 
Seas Act of 2011, a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Marine 
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, MDRPRA. This act, of 
which I am proud to have been the original sponsor, was first passed in 
2006 to address the pervasive issue of marine debris which is found in 
myriad forms throughout our oceans. It created programs in both the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. 
Coast Guard that research, track, and work to mitigate and remove 
marine debris and its associated impacts. The Trash Free Seas Act would 
update these programs to incorporate advances in our understanding of 
the issue and allow for greater regional and international coordination 
in our mitigation efforts.
  Marine debris is a catch-all term that encompasses everything from 
floating refuse to lost fishing nets and pieces of micro-plastic. In 
all its forms, however, it is something that was once manufactured and 
has since been lost at sea through accident, intent, or act of nature. 
Once at sea, the impacts of marine debris may reach unintended shores 
as it drifts on ocean currents

[[Page S3441]]

and harms our ecosystems and economies. This harm may come from direct 
interactions such as physical damage to a coral reef or fishing vessel; 
through indirect impacts such as the concentration of harmful chemicals 
in floating plastics; or from a reduction in tourism due to the 
unsightliness of a littered beach. In every case we should be 
responding by working to reduce the overall problem on a global scale 
and by striving to mitigate specific impacts.
  As an island State, Hawaii is particularly susceptible to the impacts 
of marine debris and, all the more so, because we are located near the 
center of a great network of ocean currents in the Pacific that tend to 
concentrate debris into a wide region known as the ``garbage patch''. 
For this reason, our State has long been at the forefront in dealing 
with this issue and in fact we have recently become the first State to 
develop and implement a comprehensive marine debris action plan. This 
Plan, along with the programs at NOAA and the Coast Guard, are likely 
to be even more valuable to us in the coming years as recent research 
suggests that the tragic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that 
struck in March, resulted in a tremendous amount of lost infrastructure 
that may reach our shores as debris in as little as 1 to 2 years.
  The Trash Free Seas Act of 2011 would strengthen our ability to 
respond to the pervasive problem of marine debris by incorporating 
marine debris removal as an explicit purpose of the programs; 
clarifying research and assessment and reduction, prevention, and 
removal as two distinct components of the NOAA program; and including 
tool development, regional coordination, and promoting international 
action as explicit program functions.
  I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Blunt, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1120. A bill to encourage greater use of propane as a 
transportation fuel, to create jobs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Propane 
Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011. I am pleased to note that the 
junior Senators from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, 
are original cosponsors of this measure. Our bill extends for five 
years Federal Alternative Fuel Tax Credits for Propane Used as a Motor 
Fuel, Propane Vehicles, and Propane Refueling Infrastructure.
  Propane ``autogas'' is a reliable, domestically produced alternative 
fuel with lower greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions than gasoline. Sixty 
percent of propane, also known as liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, derived 
from natural gas processing and 40 percent is a byproduct of crude oil 
refining. Since LPG is derived from fossil fuels, burning it releases 
carbon dioxide, CO2. The advantage is that LPG releases less 
CO2 per unit of energy than oil and burns cleanly with 
regard to particulates.
  At present, one propane-powered light-duty vehicle, LDV, and several 
heavy-duty vehicle, HDV, propane engines and fueling systems are 
available from U.S. original equipment manufacturers, OEM. Because 
other countries offer more OEM options in propane vehicles, thorough 
testing to compare emissions with reformulated gasoline has been 
conducted on these vehicles and engines in Europe. Two of these tests 
were combined and the results are promising with respect to lower 
particulate matter, PM, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon 
monoxide, CO, and total hydrocarbon, THC, emissions, as the chart below 
details:
  To augment LPG's generally cleaner combustion properties, propane 
engines can be calibrated to choose between pollutants, making the 
engine additionally useful in achieving regional or local pollution-
reduction targets. A rich calibration reduces nitrogen oxides, 
NOX, at the expense of increasing CO and non-methane 
hydrocarbons and a lean calibration does just the opposite.
  Propane is in surplus worldwide with 93 percent of U.S. propane 
produced domestically when combined with supply from Canada. A national 
infrastructure of pipelines, processing facilities, and storage, i.e., 
59 million barrel capacity in Texas alone, already exists for the 
efficient distribution of propane and there are roughly 3,200 propane 
dispensing stations across the U.S. Propane supply is expected to 
increase over the next several decades, which means more consumer 
availability and price stability.
  Commercial fleets are the propane autogas vehicle target market. The 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 
SAFETEA-LU, transportation reauthorization established significant tax 
incentives for propane autogas to stimulate its use in motor vehicles 
to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reduce environmental 
impacts associated with gasoline and diesel fuel use. The 2005 
legislation provided the following alternative fuel tax credits that 
benefit propane autogas, all of which would be extended under the 
legislation Senators Blunt and Stabenow and I are introducing today.
  Propane Fuel Credits--SAFETEA-LU included a 50 cent per gallon credit 
for propane sold for use in motor vehicles. This credit expires at the 
end of 2011.
  Propane Vehicle Credits--EPACT 2005 included a tax credit to 
consumers who purchase OEM propane vehicles or convert gasoline or 
diesel engines. The amount of credit the consumer receives varies 
depending on vehicle weight and emissions. This credit is currently 
expired.
  Propane Infrastructure Credits--EPACT 2005 provided a tax credit 
amounting to 30 percent of the cost of a fueling station, not to exceed 
$30,000 per station. This credit expires at the end of 2011.
  The Propane Act would extend these three tax credits for 5 years. For 
the credits to have a meaningful effect in firmly establishing a robust 
propane autogas market, they should be in place for a defined period of 
time, not extended from year-to-year in a haphazard fashion. Congress 
should not wait to act until the credits are about to expire because 
market uncertainty regarding the credits undermines the effectiveness 
of the incentives and discourages the kind of investment that Congress 
wants the private sector to make in alternative fuels. The Propane 
Green Autogas Solutions Act, if enacted, would offer the long-term 
policy commitment necessary to continue building essential alternative 
fuel infrastructure and bolster a burgeoning autogas market. Private 
investment is much more likely to occur when the availability of the 
tax credits is assured in the long-term so the propane industry can 
create the economies of scale necessary to make propane autogas a 
viable and competitive alternative fuel.
  There is no score for the bill yet. The National Propane Gas 
Association, NPGA, has retained an economic research firm to perform a 
comprehensive economic review that will look at costs and offsetting 
benefits, job creation, economic growth, etc.; foreign petroleum 
gallons displaced; and the positive environmental impact of extending 
the tax credits. The study will be available shortly and will share it 
with my colleagues when it becomes available.
  Recent rapid price increases for gasoline and diesel fuel have hurt 
Americans families and businesses. This weekend is Memorial Day 
weekend, the unofficial beginning of the summer and the summer driving 
season. Our Nation needs to come to grips with a few fundamental facts. 
We have 2-3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We account for about 5 
percent of the world's population. We currently produce 11 percent of 
the world's oil, up 11 percent over the last 2 years, in large part 
because we have more drilling rigs in operation right now than the rest 
of the world combined--by 50 percent. We account for 25 percent of the 
world's oil consumption. ``Drill here, drill now, pay less'' is a 
catchy slogan, but it's not a solution to our energy woes. As T. Boone 
Pickens himself has said, we cannot drill our way of this problem. The 
best way for the United States to put downward pressure on gasoline and 
diesel prices is through demand reduction since we are the world's 
biggest consumers of petroleum products by far. The Propane Green 
Autogas Solutions Act offers one way to reduce our demand--by 
substituting propane for gasoline or diesel fuel. Propane is a domestic 
transportation fuel. It is less

[[Page S3442]]

expensive than gasoline and diesel fuel. It burns more cleanly. These 
are all good things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1120

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Propane 
     Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Alternative Fuel Credit.--Paragraph (5) of section 
     6426(d) is amended by inserting ``, and December 31, 2016, in 
     the case of any sale or use involving liquefied petroleum 
     gas)'' after ``hydrogen''.
       (b) Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit.--Paragraph (3) of 
     section 6426(e) is amended by inserting ``, and December 31, 
     2016, in the case of any sale or use involving liquefied 
     petroleum gas)'' after ``hydrogen''.
       (c) Payments Relating to Alternative Fuel and Alternative 
     Fuel Mixtures.--Paragraph (6) of section 6427(e) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' in subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (D) and (E)'', and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end thereof,
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``, and'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) any alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as 
     so defined) involving liquefied petroleum gas sold or used 
     after December 31, 2016.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to liquefied petroleum gas sold or used after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF NEW QUALIFIED 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 30B(k) is amended 
     by inserting ``(December 31, 2016, in the case of a vehicle 
     powered by liquefied petroleum gas)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING 
                   PROPERTY CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 30C is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by 
     redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and by 
     inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) in the case of property relating to liquefied 
     petroleum gas, after December 31, 2016, and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Udall of 
        Colorado):
  S. 1126. A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to insure loans for financing 
of renewable energy systems leased for residential use, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Renewable Energy Access through Leasing Act of 2011 or the REAL Act of 
2011. I'd like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Mark Udall 
for joining in this bipartisan effort.
  Many homeowners would like to install solar panels or other renewable 
energy systems, but face the daunting challenge of paying the upfront 
cost for the technology. To purchase and install a new solar energy 
system, for example, can cost between $20,000 and $30,000. This is a 
significant and often prohibitive cost, even when more than justified 
by long-term savings.
  A promising option to promote residential use of renewable energy is 
leasing. Here is how it works: A company pays to purchase and install 
the system and the homeowner pays a fixed monthly fee to lease the 
renewable energy system from the company. It is easy for the homeowner, 
often requires no upfront cost, and can even save them money on 
electricity bills. Leasing has been successfully used for everything 
from satellite TV dishes to car. Why not solar panels too?
  One of the problems has been that renewable energy system leasing 
does not have a well-established financial market. Investors are 
reluctant to pursue these opportunities, in large part because of the 
uncertain lifespan of the renewable energy systems. The REAL Act would 
address that problem by having the Department of Energy insure the 
value of the lease. This would help create a secondary market for 
renewable energy system leases to residential customers, freeing up 
additional capital to invest in these programs.
  The benefits of renewable energy are manifold and well-documented. 
Renewable energy creates jobs. From the engineers who design the 
systems to the technicians who install them, this industry has the 
potential to support thousands of new jobs.
  Renewable energy promotes energy independence. Oil still accounts for 
approximately 40 percent of our total energy needs, and seventy percent 
of this oil is imported from foreign countries, many of whom, to put it 
mildly, are not committed to our best interests. We are sending $1 
billion per day overseas to fund this addiction.
  Renewable energy reduces harmful pollution. Many of our current dirty 
sources of energy are significant contributors to air pollution, 
leading to increased cases of asthma, respiratory diseases, and birth 
defects. Moreover, these energy sources are significant contributors to 
global climate change, harming our communities through sea level rise 
and increased extreme weather. Rapidly rising greenhouse gas 
concentrations are also putting severe strain on our oceans through 
acidification and temperature change, creating conditions not seen for 
millions of years. In my home state of Rhode Island, the Narragansett 
Bay has witnessed a 4 degree increase in average annual temperature, 
causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.
  It is hard to disagree that renewable energy offers solutions to many 
of the problems facing our country. But there is often disagreement 
about the best way forward to promote renewable energy. Some are 
concerned about the budget impact of promoting renewable energy, some 
are concerned about government mandates, and some are concerned about 
government subsidies. While we may disagree on other means to promote 
renewable energy, I am hoping that we can all agree on this bipartisan 
proposal.
  The REAL Act would not add a dime to the budget deficit. The 
Congressional Budget Office scored similar legislation last Congress as 
having no budget impact. It achieves this goal because the insurance 
program is paid for entirely through premiums. The bill also protects 
the taxpayer in the case of a default because the government has the 
right to collect revenues directly from the renewable energy system.
  The REAL Act is not a subsidy and requires no appropriation. It 
relies on the value of the renewable energy system itself to provide 
the basis for the insurance.
  The REAL Act is also not a mandate. It has no requirement to use the 
leasing mechanism, but merely facilitates the expansion of renewable 
energy leasing to homeowners.
  While this bill is only one piece of the puzzle to solving our 
overall energy problem, I hope that it is a piece we can all agree on. 
Providing additional options to lease renewable energy systems is a win 
for our homeowners, our economy, and our environment.
  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. 1126

       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 ``Renewable Energy Access 
     through Leasing Act of 2011'' or the ``REAL Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. LOANS FOR FINANCING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS 
                   LEASED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

       Subtitle A of title IV of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 is amended by inserting after section 
     413 (42 U.S.C. 17071) the following:

     ``SEC. 414. LOANS FOR FINANCING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS 
                   LEASED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--

[[Page S3443]]

       ``(1) to encourage residential use of renewable energy 
     systems by minimizing upfront costs and providing immediate 
     utility cost savings to consumers through leasing of those 
     systems to homeowners;
       ``(2) to reduce carbon emissions and the use of 
     nonrenewable resources;
       ``(3) to encourage energy-efficient residential 
     construction and rehabilitation;
       ``(4) to encourage the use of renewable resources by 
     homeowners;
       ``(5) to minimize the impact of development on the 
     environment;
       ``(6) to reduce consumer utility costs; and
       ``(7) to encourage private investment in the green economy.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Authorized renewable energy lender.--The term 
     `authorized renewable energy lender' means a lender 
     authorized by the Secretary to make a loan under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Renewable energy system lease.--The term `renewable 
     system energy lease' means an agreement between an authorized 
     renewable energy system owner and a homeowner for a term of 
     not less than 5 years, under which the homeowner--
       ``(A) grants an easement to the renewable energy system 
     owner to install, maintain, use, and otherwise access the 
     renewable energy system; and
       ``(B) agrees to--
       ``(i) lease the use of the system from the renewable energy 
     system owner; or
       ``(ii) a power purchase agreement.
       ``(3) Renewable energy manufacturer.--The term `renewable 
     energy manufacturer' means a manufacturer of renewable energy 
     systems.
       ``(4) Renewable energy system.--The term `renewable energy 
     system' means a system of energy derived from--
       ``(A) a wind, solar (including photovoltaic and solar 
     thermal), biomass (including biodiesel), or geothermal 
     source; or
       ``(B) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an 
     energy source described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Renewable energy system owner.--The term `renewable 
     energy system owner' means a homebuilder, a manufacturer or 
     installer of a renewable energy system, or any other person, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, on application by an 
     authorized renewable energy system owner, insure or make a 
     commitment to insure a loan made by an authorized renewable 
     energy lender to a renewable energy system owner to finance 
     the acquisition of a renewable energy system for lease to a 
     homeowner for use at the residence of the homeowner.
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     such terms and conditions for insurance under paragraph (1) 
     as are consistent with the purposes of this section.
       ``(d) Limitation on Principal Amount.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--The principal amount of a loan insured 
     under this section shall not exceed the residual value of the 
     renewable energy system to be acquired with the loan.
       ``(2) Residual value.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the residual value of a renewable energy system shall 
     be the fair market value of the future revenue stream from 
     the sale of the expected remaining electricity production 
     from the system, pursuant to the easement granted in 
     accordance with subsection (e); and
       ``(B) the fair market value of the future revenue stream 
     for each year of the remaining life of the renewable energy 
     system shall be determined based on the net present value of 
     the power output production warranty for the renewable energy 
     system provided by the renewable energy manufacturer and the 
     forecast of regional residential electricity prices made by 
     the Energy Information Administration of the Department.
       ``(e) Easement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not insure a loan 
     under this section unless the renewable energy system owner 
     certifies, in accordance with such requirements as the 
     Secretary shall establish, consistent with the purposes of 
     this section, that the renewable energy system financed will 
     be leased only to a homeowner that grants an easement to 
     install, maintain, use, and otherwise access the renewable 
     energy system that includes the right to sell electricity 
     produced during the life of the renewable energy system to a 
     wholesale or retail electrical power grid.
       ``(2) Assumable lease.--The renewable energy system lease 
     shall specify that the renewable energy system lease can be 
     assumed by new homeowners.
       ``(f) Discount or Prepayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--To encourage the use of renewable energy 
     systems, the Secretary shall ensure that a discount given to 
     a homeowner by a renewable energy system owner or other 
     investor or prepayment of a renewable energy system lease by 
     a renewable energy system owner does not adversely affect the 
     mortgage requirements of the homeowner.
       ``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary may consult with agencies and entities involved in 
     oversight of home mortgages.
       ``(g) Eligibility of Lenders.--The Secretary may not insure 
     a loan under this section unless the lender making the loan 
     is an institution that meets such requirements as the 
     Secretary shall establish for participation of renewable 
     energy lenders in the program under this section.
       ``(h) Certificate of Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue to a lender 
     that is insured under this section a certificate that serves 
     as evidence of insurance coverage under this section.
       ``(2) Contents of certificate.--The certificate required 
     under paragraph (1) shall describe the fair market value of 
     the future revenue stream for each year of the remaining life 
     of the renewable energy system.
       ``(3) Full faith and credit.--The certificate required 
     under paragraph (1) shall be backed by the full faith and 
     credit of the United States.
       ``(i) Payment of Insurance Claim.--
       ``(1) Filing of claim.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     filing of claims for insurance under this section and the 
     payment of the claims.
       ``(2) Payment of claim.--A claim under paragraph (1) may be 
     paid only on a default under the loan insured under this 
     section and the assignment, transfer, and delivery to the 
     Secretary of--
       ``(A) all rights and interests arising under the loan; and
       ``(B) all claims of the lender or the assigns of the lender 
     against the borrower or others arising under the loan 
     transaction.
       ``(3) Lien.--
       ``(A) In general.--On payment of a claim for insurance of a 
     loan under this section, the Secretary shall hold a lien on 
     the underlying renewable energy system assets and any 
     associated revenue stream from the use of the system, which 
     shall be superior to all other liens on the assets.
       ``(B) Residual value.--The residual value of the renewable 
     energy system and the revenue stream from the use of the 
     system shall be not less than the unpaid balance of the loan 
     amount covered by the certificate of insurance.
       ``(C) Revenue from sale.--The Secretary shall be entitled 
     to any revenue generated by the renewable energy system from 
     selling electricity to the grid when an insurance claim has 
     been paid out.
       ``(j) Assignment and Transferability of Insurance.--A 
     renewable energy system owner or an authorized renewable 
     energy lender that is insured under this section may assign 
     or transfer the insurance, in whole or in part, to another 
     owner or lender, subject to such requirements as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(k) Premiums and Charges.--
       ``(1) Insurance premiums.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall fix and collect 
     premiums for insurance of loans under this section, that 
     shall be--
       ``(i) paid by the applicant renewable energy system owner 
     at the time of issuance of the certificate of insurance to 
     the lender; and
       ``(ii) adequate, as determined by the Secretary, to cover 
     the expenses and probable losses of administering the program 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Deposit of premium.--The Secretary shall deposit any 
     premiums collected under this subsection in the Renewable 
     Energy Lease Insurance Fund established by subsection (l).
       ``(2) Prohibition on other charges.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may not assess any other fee 
     (including a user fee), insurance premium, or charge in 
     connection with loan insurance provided under this section.
       ``(l) Renewable Energy Lease Insurance Fund.--
       ``(1) Fund established.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States the Renewable Energy Lease 
     Insurance Fund (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Fund'), which shall be available to the Secretary without 
     fiscal year limitation, for the purpose of providing 
     insurance under this section.
       ``(2) Credits.--The Fund shall be credited with--
       ``(A) any premiums collected under subsection (k)(1);
       ``(B) any amounts collected by the Secretary under 
     subsection (i)(3); and
       ``(C) any associated interest or earnings.
       ``(3) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available 
     to the Secretary for--
       ``(A) fulfilling any obligations with respect to insurance 
     for loans provided under this section; and
       ``(B) paying administrative expenses in connection with 
     this section.
       ``(4) Excess amounts.--The Secretary may invest in 
     obligations of the United States any amounts in the Fund 
     determined by the Secretary to be in excess of amounts 
     required at the time of the determination to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(m) Ineligibility for Purchase by Federal Financing 
     Bank.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no debt 
     obligation that is insured or committed to be insured by the 
     Secretary under this section shall be subject to the Federal 
     Financing Bank Act of 1973 (12 U.S.C. 2281 et seq.).
       ``(n) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Multifamily housing.--In issuing the regulations, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that multifamily housing units are 
     eligible for programs established by this section.
       ``(3) Timing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue interim 
     or final regulations.
       ``(o) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to insure and make commitments to insure new loans 
     under this

[[Page S3444]]

     section shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after 
     the date of enactment of this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1130. A bill to strengthen the United States trade laws and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect 
American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a 
level playing field with foreign companies.
  The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a 
placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on 
introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative 
action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending 
Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally 
dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this 
bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy 
forward.
  The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to 
live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing 
the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a 
seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens 
countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from 
countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized.
  Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO, 
from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve 
of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with 
an adverse WTO decision.
  This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep 
their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to 
treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to 
with countervailing duties.
  My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent 
adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that 
obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our 
government has not previously agreed to.
  These steps are important because businesses like those in my home 
state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods 
that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive 
American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West 
Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can 
have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years 
in response to these challenges.
  I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers, 
testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on 
behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an 
effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give 
American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It 
has become clear to me through the years though that the current 
protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow 
our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this 
bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American 
businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the 
merits of their ideas and their hard work.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Blunt, 
        Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Portman, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1133. A bill to prevent the evasion of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, President, I rise today to introduce the 
Enforcing Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act, or the 
ENFORCE Act, of 2011.
  For almost a century, Democratic and Republican Administrations have 
promoted and protected America's anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
laws. These laws recognize the reality that foreign competitors don't 
always play by the rules. Some employ unfair and unscrupulous trade 
practices that put American businesses at a serious disadvantage. So, 
when it comes to ensuring that American businesses and workers have a 
level playing field to compete, anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
laws are the first line of defense.
  But it is not enough to just pass these laws; they need to be 
enforced. Duties don't work unless they are assessed and collected. But 
just like some people cheat their way out of taxes, the same is true 
for foreign supplies and dishonest importers who evade and flout the 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties that protect American business 
and workers from grievous economic harm.
  These suppliers and importers are what I call trade cheats.
  You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be 
unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is 
sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes 
additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti-
dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American 
producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.
  But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American 
taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on 
imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they 
cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs. 
In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.
  The trade cheats are increasingly, and brazenly, employing a variety 
of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their 
merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from 
somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide 
fraudulent information' to government authorities at American ports of 
entry, or they engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.
  In recognizing this problem, I convened a hearing in the subcommittee 
on international trade, customs and global competitiveness entitled 
``Enforcing America's Trade Laws in the Face of Customs Fraud and Duty 
Evasion'' in May of this year. At this hearing we heard from Senators 
of both political parties and companies from across this nation about 
their concerns regarding this lack of enforcement. Others launched 
their own investigation into the matter.
  My own staff on the Finance Subcommittee on Trade, Customs and 
Competitiveness learned that if often takes Customs and Border 
Protection, CBP, nearly a year to ask its sister agencies for 
investigatory help when it is needed and when CBP does refer a case to 
an outside agency they don't follow-up to ensure that it gets handled. 
It generally takes several years for the government to conclude an 
investigation into evasion and reassess the appropriate duties that 
should have been collected.

  Customs and Border Protection, is the nation's frontline defense 
against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing U.S. trade remedy 
laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet, if you listen to the concerns of 
domestic producers, like those who testified at my hearing, timely and 
effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains problematic and AD/CV 
duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.
  While Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and CBP are 
dragging their feet to enforce our trade laws, this country's domestic 
manufacturers are being hammered by foreign trade cheats. It is not 
like the cheaters wait around to get caught and pay their fines, they 
disappear long before the so called government watchdogs arrive. ICE 
and CBP are the two principal American government agencies that are 
supposed to police this beat. In my view, one of them, CBP, treats 
allegations of duty evasion like junk mail. The other, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, has been more visible on the issue of alleged 
illegal movie downloads than taking steps to protect tens of thousands 
of manufacturing jobs that are threatened by unfair trade.
  Such lollygagging is not only hurting our domestic producer, it is 
hurting our country's treasury. U.S. industry sources estimate that 
approximately

[[Page S3445]]

$91 million in AD/CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just 
four steel products went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009. 
This is an amount equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected 
that year. With 300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless 
products from over 40 countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion 
is vast, and hundreds of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted 
for. Every penny counts and we have an obligation to the American 
businesses, and the workers they rely on, to do a better job.
  The bill I am introducing today, with Senators Snowe, McCaskill, 
Blunt, Brown from Ohio, Portman, and Schumer, will go a long way toward 
empowering the federal government to do a better job to combat the 
trade cheats and enforce U.S. trade laws. I would like to highlight 
just a few of the main provisions.
  First, the ENFORCE Act would formalize a process by which allegations 
of evasion are acted on. Because CBP primarily relies on the private 
sector to identify evasion of AD/CVD, the ENFORCE Act would formalize 
that process by allowing stakeholders to file a petition alleging 
evasion and require CBP to initiate an investigation pursuant to the 
petition within 10 days.
  Second, our bill would establish a rapid-response timeline by which 
CBP would investigate allegations of evasion. The ENFORCE Act would 
give the CBP 90 days, after an investigation of evasion begins, to make 
a preliminary determination into whether there is a reason to believe 
an importer is evading an AD/CVD order. So if an affirmative 
preliminary determination is made, AD/CV duties would be required to be 
collected in cash until the investigation is concluded and any entries 
of subject merchandise would not be liquidated by CBP in order to 
ensure that the correct amount of duties owed can be collected. CBP 
would also be required to make a final determination as to whether 
merchandise subject to an investigation under the bill entered into the 
U.S. through an evasion scheme within 120 days after CBP has issued a 
preliminary determination. Flexibilities are added to these timelines 
for cases that are complex. All of this would put an end to the 
lollygagging that our domestic producers would desperately like to see 
ended.
  Third, the ENFORCE Act would help facilitate information sharing. Our 
bill would establish clear instruction and guidelines to promote 
appropriate information sharing among the various agencies to better 
combat evasion and protect consumers from unsafe goods. Everyone knows 
that the more information law enforcement agencies have, the better 
they are able to do their jobs.
  Last and certainly not least, our bill would establish 
accountability. CBP's broad mandate to facilitate trade, enforce trade 
remedy laws, and protect national security often leads to inconsistent 
efforts to combat evasion of the trade remedy laws. The ENFORCE Act 
would require CBP to provide annual reports to us here in Congress 
about the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts and the job it is 
required to do to protect American producers from the harm of unfairly 
traded imports.
  As you can see, this bill presents a common-sense strategy to combat 
trade cheating and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty 
collection. Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade 
practices must be a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that 
is designed to promote economic growth and job expansion, especially as 
we continue to recover from a recession.
  I want to take a moment to recognize and thank some terrific 
colleagues of mine in the Senate that are joining me in introducing 
this legislation. I thank you, and your staff, for your help and for 
your efforts. I would also like to thank the Retail Industry Leaders 
Association, the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, and the 
Coalition to Enforce Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Orders for their 
valuable input. I look forward to more of their input going forward.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with 
my friends in the House of Representatives to build support for this 
initiative and to take action on behalf of American producers.
  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. 1133

       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 ``Enforcing 
     Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                          TITLE I--PROCEDURES

Sec. 101. Procedures for investigating claims of evasion of antidumping 
              and countervailing duty orders.
Sec. 102. Application to Canada and Mexico.

                        TITLE II--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Allocation of U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Sec. 203. Regulations.
Sec. 204. Annual report on prevention of evasion of antidumping and 
              countervailing duty orders.
Sec. 205. Government Accountability Office report on reliquidation 
              authority.

                          TITLE I--PROCEDURES

     SEC. 101. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING CLAIMS OF EVASION OF 
                   ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by 
     inserting after section 516A (19 U.S.C. 1516a) the following:

     ``SEC. 516B. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING CLAIMS OF EVASION 
                   OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administering authority.--The term `administering 
     authority' has the meaning given that term in section 771(1).
       ``(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       ``(3) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the 
     Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection.
       ``(4) Covered merchandise.--The term `covered merchandise' 
     means merchandise that is subject to--
       ``(A) an antidumping duty order issued under section 736;
       ``(B) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921; or
       ``(C) a countervailing duty order issued under section 706.
       ``(5) Enter; entry.--The terms `enter' and `entry' refer to 
     the entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in 
     the customs territory of the United States.
       ``(6) Evade; evasion.--The terms `evade' and `evasion' 
     refer to entering covered merchandise into the customs 
     territory of the United States by means of any document or 
     electronically transmitted data or information, written or 
     oral statement, or act that is material and false, or any 
     omission that is material, and that results in any cash 
     deposit or other security or any amount of applicable 
     antidumping or countervailing duties being reduced or not 
     being applied with respect to the merchandise.
       ``(7) Interested party.--The term `interested party' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 771(9).
       ``(b) Procedures for Investigating Allegations of 
     Evasion.--
       ``(1) Initiation by petition or referral.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 10 days after the date on 
     which the Commissioner receives a petition described in 
     subparagraph (B) or a referral described in subparagraph (C), 
     the Commissioner shall initiate an investigation pursuant to 
     this paragraph if the Commissioner determines that the 
     information provided in the petition or the referral, as the 
     case may be, is accurate and reasonably suggests that covered 
     merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of 
     the United States through evasion.
       ``(B) Petition described.--A petition described in this 
     subparagraph is a petition that--
       ``(i) is filed with the Commissioner by any party who is an 
     interested party with respect to covered merchandise;
       ``(ii) alleges that a person has entered covered 
     merchandise into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion; and
       ``(iii) is accompanied by information reasonably available 
     to the petitioner supporting the allegation.
       ``(C) Referral described.--A referral described in this 
     subparagraph is information submitted to the Commissioner by 
     any other Federal agency, including the Department of 
     Commerce or the United States International Trade Commission, 
     indicating that a person has entered covered merchandise into 
     the customs territory of the United States through evasion.
       ``(2) Determinations.--
       ``(A) Preliminary determination.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commissioner

[[Page S3446]]

     initiates an investigation under paragraph (1), the 
     Commissioner shall issue a preliminary determination, based 
     on information available to the Commissioner at the time of 
     the determination, with respect to whether there is a 
     reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the covered 
     merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the 
     United States through evasion.
       ``(ii) Extension.--The Commissioner may extend by not more 
     than 45 days the time period specified in clause (i) if the 
     Commissioner determines that sufficient information to make a 
     preliminary determination under that clause is not available 
     within that time period or the inquiry is unusually complex.
       ``(B) Final determination.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after making a 
     preliminary determination under subparagraph (A), the 
     Commissioner shall make a final determination, based on 
     substantial evidence, with respect to whether covered 
     merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the 
     United States through evasion.
       ``(ii) Extension.--The Commissioner may extend by not more 
     than 60 days the time period specified in clause (i) if the 
     Commissioner determines that sufficient information to make a 
     final determination under that clause is not available within 
     that time period or the inquiry is unusually complex.
       ``(C) Opportunity for comment; hearing.--Before issuing a 
     preliminary determination under subparagraph (A) or a final 
     determination under subparagraph (B) with respect to whether 
     covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of 
     the United States through evasion, the Commissioner shall--
       ``(i) provide any person alleged to have entered the 
     merchandise into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion, and any person that is an interested party 
     with respect to the merchandise, with an opportunity to be 
     heard;
       ``(ii) upon request, hold a hearing with respect to whether 
     the covered merchandise was entered into the customs 
     territory of the United States through evasion; and
       ``(iii) provide an opportunity for public comment.
       ``(D) Authority to collect and verify additional 
     information.--In making a preliminary determination under 
     subparagraph (A) or a final determination under subparagraph 
     (B), the Commissioner--
       ``(i) shall exercise all existing authorities to collect 
     information needed to make the determination; and
       ``(ii) may collect such additional information as is 
     necessary to make the determination through such methods as 
     the Commissioner considers appropriate, including by--

       ``(I) issuing a questionnaire with respect to covered 
     merchandise to--

       ``(aa) a person that filed a petition under paragraph 
     (1)(B);
       ``(bb) a person alleged to have entered covered merchandise 
     into the customs territory of the United States through 
     evasion; or
       ``(cc) any other person that is an interested party with 
     respect to the covered merchandise; or

       ``(II) conducting verifications, including on-site 
     verifications, of any relevant information.

       ``(E) Adverse inference.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Commissioner finds that a person 
     that filed a petition under paragraph (1)(B), a person 
     alleged to have entered covered merchandise into the customs 
     territory of the United States through evasion, or a foreign 
     producer or exporter, has failed to cooperate by not acting 
     to the best of the person's ability to comply with a request 
     for information, the Commissioner may, in making a 
     preliminary determination under subparagraph (A) or a final 
     determination under subparagraph (B), use an inference that 
     is adverse to the interests of that person in selecting from 
     among the facts otherwise available to determine whether 
     evasion has occurred.
       ``(ii) Adverse inference described.--An adverse inference 
     used under clause (i) may include reliance on information 
     derived from--

       ``(I) the petition, if any, submitted under paragraph 
     (1)(B) with respect to the covered merchandise;
       ``(II) a determination by the Commissioner in another 
     investigation under this section;
       ``(III) an investigation or review by the administering 
     authority under title VII; or
       ``(IV) any other information placed on the record.

       ``(F) Notification and publication.--Not later than 7 days 
     after making a preliminary determination under subparagraph 
     (A) or a final determination under subparagraph (B), the 
     Commissioner shall--
       ``(i) provide notification of the determination to--

       ``(I) the administering authority; and
       ``(II) the person that submitted the petition under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or the Federal agency that submitted the 
     referral under paragraph (1)(C); and

       ``(ii) provide the determination for publication in the 
     Federal Register.
       ``(3) Business proprietary information.--
       ``(A) Establishment of procedures.--For each investigation 
     initiated under paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall 
     establish procedures for the submission of business 
     proprietary information under an administrative protective 
     order that--
       ``(i) protects against public disclosure of such 
     information; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of submitting comments to the 
     Commissioner, provides limited access to such information 
     for--

       ``(I) the person that submitted the petition under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or the Federal agency that submitted the 
     referral under paragraph (1)(C); and
       ``(II) the person alleged to have entered covered 
     merchandise into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion.

       ``(B) Administration in accordance with other procedures.--
     The procedures established under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     administered--
       ``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner 
     similar to the manner in which the administering authority 
     administers the administrative protective order procedures 
     under section 777;
       ``(ii) in accordance with section 1905 of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(iii) in a manner that is consistent with the obligations 
     of the United States under the Agreement on Implementation of 
     Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     1994 (referred to in section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(8)) (relating to customs 
     valuation).
       ``(C) Disclosure of business proprietary information.--The 
     Commissioner shall, in accordance with the procedures 
     established under subparagraph (A) and consistent with 
     subparagraph (B), make all business proprietary information 
     presented to, or obtained by, the Commissioner during an 
     investigation available to the persons specified in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) under an administrative protective 
     order, regardless of when such information is submitted 
     during an investigation.
       ``(4) Referrals to other federal agencies.--
       ``(A) After preliminary determination.--Notwithstanding 
     section 777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the 
     Commissioner makes an affirmative preliminary determination 
     under paragraph (2)(A), the Commissioner shall, at the 
     request of the head of another Federal agency, transmit the 
     administrative record to the head of that agency.
       ``(B) After final determination.--Notwithstanding section 
     777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the Commissioner 
     makes an affirmative final determination under paragraph 
     (2)(B), the Commissioner shall, at the request of the head of 
     another Federal agency, transmit the complete administrative 
     record to the head of that agency.
       ``(C) Protective orders.--Before transmitting an 
     administrative record to the head of another Federal agency 
     under subparagraph (A) or (B), the Commissioner shall verify 
     that the other agency has in effect with respect to the 
     administrative record a protective order that provides the 
     same or a similar level of protection for the information in 
     the administrative record as the protective order in effect 
     with respect to such information under this subsection.
       ``(c) Effect of Determinations.--
       ``(1) Effect of affirmative preliminary determination.--If 
     the Commissioner makes a preliminary determination in 
     accordance with subsection (b)(2)(A) that there is a 
     reasonable basis to believe or suspect that covered 
     merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the 
     United States through evasion, the Commissioner shall--
       ``(A) suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry of 
     the covered merchandise that is subject to the preliminary 
     determination and that entered on or after the date of the 
     initiation of the investigation under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) review and reassess the amount of bond or other 
     security the importer is required to post for each entry of 
     merchandise described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) require the posting of a cash deposit with respect to 
     each entry of merchandise described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(D) take such other measures as the Commissioner 
     determines appropriate to ensure the collection of any duties 
     that may be owed with respect to merchandise described in 
     subparagraph (A) as a result of a final determination under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Effect of negative preliminary determination.--If the 
     Commissioner makes a preliminary determination in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(2)(A) that there is not a reasonable 
     basis to believe or suspect that covered merchandise was 
     entered into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion, the Commissioner shall continue the 
     investigation and notify the administering authority pending 
     a final determination under subsection (b)(2)(B).
       ``(3) Effect of affirmative final determination.--If the 
     Commissioner makes a final determination in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) that covered merchandise was entered 
     into the customs territory of the United States through 
     evasion, the Commissioner shall--
       ``(A) suspend or continue to suspend, as the case may be, 
     the liquidation of each entry of the covered merchandise that 
     is subject to the determination and that enters on or after 
     the date of the determination;
       ``(B) notify the administering authority of the 
     determination and request that the administering authority--
       ``(i) identify the applicable antidumping or countervailing 
     duty assessment rate for the entries for which liquidation is 
     suspended under paragraph (1)(A) or subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(ii) if no such assessment rates are available at the 
     time, identify the applicable cash

[[Page S3447]]

     deposit rate to be applied to the entries described in 
     subparagraph (A), with the applicable antidumping or 
     countervailing duty assessment rates to be provided as soon 
     as such rates become available;
       ``(C) require the posting of cash deposits and assess 
     duties on each entry of merchandise described in subparagraph 
     (A) in accordance with the instructions received from the 
     administering authority under paragraph (5);
       ``(D) review and reassess the amount of bond or other 
     security the importer is required to post for merchandise 
     described in subparagraph (A) to ensure the protection of 
     revenue and compliance with the law; and
       ``(E) take such additional enforcement measures as the 
     Commissioner determines appropriate, such as--
       ``(i) initiating proceedings under section 592 or 596;
       ``(ii) implementing, in consultation with the relevant 
     Federal agencies, rule sets or modifications to rules sets 
     for identifying, particularly through the Automated Targeting 
     System and the Automated Commercial Environment, importers, 
     other parties, and merchandise that may be associated with 
     evasion;
       ``(iii) requiring, with respect to merchandise for which 
     the importer has repeatedly provided incomplete or erroneous 
     entry summary information in connection with determinations 
     of evasion, the importer to submit entry summary 
     documentation and to deposit estimated duties at the time of 
     entry;
       ``(iv) referring the record in whole or in part to U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement for civil or criminal 
     investigation; and
       ``(v) transmitting the administrative record to the 
     administering authority for further appropriate proceedings.
       ``(4) Effect of negative final determination.--If the 
     Commissioner makes a final determination in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) that covered merchandise was not entered 
     into the customs territory of the United States through 
     evasion, the Commissioner shall terminate the suspension of 
     liquidation pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) and refund any cash 
     deposits collected pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) that are in 
     excess of the cash deposit rate that would otherwise have 
     been applicable the merchandise.
       ``(5) Cooperation of administering authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon receiving a notification from the 
     Commissioner under paragraph (3)(B), the administering 
     authority shall promptly provide to the Commissioner the 
     applicable cash deposit rates and antidumping or 
     countervailing duty assessment rates and any necessary 
     liquidation instructions.
       ``(B) Special rule for cases in which the producer or 
     exporter is unknown.--If the Commissioner and administering 
     authority are unable to determine the producer or exporter of 
     the merchandise with respect to which a notification is made 
     under paragraph (3)(B), the administering authority shall 
     identify, as the applicable cash deposit rate or antidumping 
     or countervailing duty assessment rate, the cash deposit or 
     duty (as the case may be) in the highest amount applicable to 
     any producer or exporter, including the `all-others' rate of 
     the merchandise subject to an antidumping order or 
     countervailing duty order under section 736 or 706, 
     respectively, or a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 
     1921, or any administrative review conducted under section 
     751.
       ``(d) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Effect on other authorities.--Neither the initiation 
     of an investigation under subsection (b)(1) nor a preliminary 
     determination or a final determination under subsection 
     (b)(2) shall affect the authority of the Commissioner--
       ``(A) to pursue such other enforcement measures with 
     respect to the evasion of antidumping or countervailing 
     duties as the Commissioner determines necessary, including 
     enforcement measures described in clauses (i) through (iv) of 
     subsection (c)(3)(E); or
       ``(B) to assess any penalties or collect any applicable 
     duties, taxes, and fees, including pursuant to section 592.
       ``(2) Effect of determinations on fraud actions.--Neither a 
     preliminary determination nor a final determination under 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be determinative in a proceeding 
     under section 592.
       ``(3) Negligence or intent.--The Commissioner shall 
     investigate and make a preliminary determination or a final 
     determination under this section with respect to whether a 
     person has entered covered merchandise into the customs 
     territory of the United States through evasion without regard 
     to whether the person--
       ``(A) intended to violate an antidumping duty order or 
     countervailing duty order under section 736 or 706, 
     respectively, or a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 
     1921; or
       ``(B) exercised reasonable care with respect to avoiding a 
     violation of such an order or finding.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     777(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677f(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) to an officer or employee of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection who is directly involved in conducting an 
     investigation regarding fraud under this title or claims of 
     evasion under section 516B.''.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Section 516A(a)(2) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (i)(III), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) the date of publication in the Federal Register of 
     a determination described in clause (ix) of subparagraph 
     (B),''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(ix) A determination by the Commissioner responsible for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection under section 516B that 
     merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of 
     the United States through evasion.''.
       (d) Finality of Determinations.--Section 514(b) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 303'' and all that follows through ``which are 
     reviewable'' and inserting ``section 516B or title VII that 
     are reviewable''.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.

       Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3438), the amendments 
     made by this title shall apply with respect to goods from 
     Canada and Mexico.

                        TITLE II--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the terms ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'', ``Commissioner'', ``covered merchandise'', 
     ``enter'' and ``entry'', and ``evade'' and ``evasion'' have 
     the meanings given those terms in section 516B(a) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (as added by section 101 of this Act).

     SEC. 202. ALLOCATION OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) Reassignment and Allocation.--The Commissioner shall, 
     to the maximum extent possible, ensure that U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection--
       (1) employs sufficient personnel who have expertise in, and 
     responsibility for, preventing the entry of covered 
     merchandise into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion; and
       (2) on the basis of risk assessment metrics, assigns 
     sufficient personnel with primary responsibility for 
     preventing the entry of covered merchandise into the customs 
     territory of the United States through evasion to the ports 
     of entry in the United States at which the Commissioner 
     determines potential evasion presents the most substantial 
     threats to the revenue of the United States.
       (b) Commercial Enforcement Officers.--Not later than 
     September 30, 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Commissioner, and the Assistant Secretary for U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall assess and properly 
     allocate the resources of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--
       (1) to effectively implement the provisions of, and 
     amendments made by, this Act; and
       (2) to improve efforts to investigate and combat evasion.

     SEC. 203. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall issue 
     regulations to carry out this title and the amendments made 
     by title I.
       (b) Cooperation Between U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Department of 
     Commerce.--Not later than 240 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, the Assistant 
     Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall establish procedures to 
     ensure maximum cooperation and communication between U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, and the Department of Commerce in order to 
     quickly, efficiently, and accurately investigate allegations 
     of evasion under section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as 
     added by section 101 of this Act).

     SEC. 204. ANNUAL REPORT ON PREVENTION OF EVASION OF 
                   ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 28 of each year, 
     beginning in 2012, the Commissioner, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the efforts being taken 
     pursuant to section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as added 
     by section 101 of this Act) to prevent the entry of covered 
     merchandise into the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion.
       (b) Contents.--Each report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) for the fiscal year preceding the submission of the 
     report--
       (A) the number and a brief description of petitions and 
     referrals received pursuant to section 516B(b)(1) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (as added by section 101 of this Act);
       (B) the results of the investigations initiated under such 
     section, including any related enforcement actions, and the 
     amount of antidumping and countervailing duties collected as 
     a result of those investigations; and
       (C) to the extent appropriate, a summary of the efforts of 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection, other than efforts 
     initiated pursuant section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930

[[Page S3448]]

     (as added by section 101 of this Act), to prevent the entry 
     of covered merchandise into the customs territory of the 
     United States through evasion; and
       (2) for the 3 fiscal years preceding the submission of the 
     report, an estimate of--
       (A) the amount of covered merchandise that entered the 
     customs territory of the United States through evasion; and
       (B) the amount of duties that could not be collected on 
     such merchandise because the Commissioner did not have the 
     authority to reliquidate the entries of such merchandise.

     SEC. 205. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON 
                   RELIQUIDATION AUTHORITY.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees, and make 
     available to the public, a report estimating the amount of 
     duties that could not be collected on covered merchandise 
     that entered the customs territory of the United States 
     through evasion during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 because the 
     Commissioner did not have the authority to reliquidate the 
     entries of such merchandise.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Paul):
  S. 1135. A bill to provide for the reenrichment of certain depleted 
uranium owned by the Department of Energy, and for the sale or barter 
of the resulting reenriched uranium, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 1135

       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 ``Energy and Revenue 
     Enrichment Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Energy.
       (2) Enrichment plant.--The term ``enrichment plant'' means 
     a uranium enrichment plant owned by the Department of Energy 
     with respect to which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has 
     made a determination of compliance under section 1701(b)(2) 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297f(b)(2)).
       (3) Qualified operator.--The term ``qualified operator'' 
     means a company that has experience in operating an 
     enrichment plant under Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     authorization and has the ability and workforce to enrich the 
     depleted uranium that is owned by the Department of Energy.
       (4) Reenrichment.--The term ``reenrichment'' means 
     increasing the weight percent of U-235 in uranium in order to 
     make the uranium usable.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

     SEC. 3. REENRICHMENT CONTRACT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract 
     with a qualified operator for a 24 month pilot program for 
     the reenrichment at an enrichment plant of the depleted 
     uranium described in section 2(3) that the Secretary finds 
     economically viable. The Secretary shall seek to maximize the 
     financial return to the Federal Government in negotiating the 
     terms of such contract.
       (2) Amount of enrichment.--The Secretary shall, during each 
     year of the pilot program under this subsection, conduct 
     uranium reenrichment under such program in an amount 
     (measured in separative work units) equal to approximately 25 
     percent of the aggregate uranium enrichment conducted in the 
     United States during calendar year 2010.
       (3) Economic viability.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     uranium shall be considered economically viable if the cost 
     to the United States of the reenrichment thereof, including 
     the costs of the contract entered into under paragraph (1), 
     are less than the revenue anticipated from the sale of the 
     reenriched uranium.
       (b) Commencement of Reenrichment Activities.--Reenrichment 
     activities under the contract entered into under subsection 
     (a) shall commence as soon as possible, but no later than 
     June 1, 2012.
       (c) Sale of Reenriched Uranium.--The Secretary may from 
     time to time sell the reenriched uranium generated pursuant 
     to the contract entered into under subsection (a).
       (d) Allocation and Use of Proceeds.--Any funds received by 
     the Secretary from the sale of reenriched uranium generated 
     pursuant to the contract entered into under subsection (a) 
     shall be allocated as follows:
       (1) First, such funds shall be available to the Secretary, 
     without further appropriation and without fiscal year 
     limitation, to carry out this section, including amounts 
     required to be paid under the contract entered into under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Any amounts not required for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Uranium Enrichment 
     Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established in 
     section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2297g), to be available for use, without further 
     appropriation and without fiscal year limitation.

     SEC. 4. DEPLETED URANIUM.

       (a) Title and Responsibility for Disposition.--The 
     Secretary shall assume title to, and responsibility for the 
     disposition of, all depleted uranium generated pursuant to 
     the contract entered into under section 3(a).
       (b) Funding for Reenrichment.--To provide funding for 
     payments under the contract entered into under section 3(a), 
     the Secretary may--
       (1) assume title to, and responsibility for the disposition 
     of, depleted uranium in addition to the depleted uranium 
     specified in subsection (a); and
       (2) transfer to the qualified operator title to uranium 
     generated as a result of the reenrichment pursuant to the 
     contract entered into under section 3(a).

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL URANIUM SALES.

       (a) Initial Period.--Notwithstanding section 3112(d) of the 
     USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h--10(d)), during the 
     24 month pilot program and the subsequent 24 months after 
     that program is complete, the Secretary may not during any 
     calendar year sell an amount of uranium that exceeds 15 
     percent of the United States' domestic uranium supply for 
     that year.
       (b) Subsequent Period.--After the expiration of the 48 
     month period described in subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     not during any calendar year sell an amount of uranium that 
     exceeds 10 percent of the United States' domestic uranium 
     supply for that year, except to the extent that the Secretary 
     determines that such sales will have no significant effect on 
     uranium markets.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1140. A bill to provide for restoration of the coastal areas of 
the Gulf of Mexico affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce 
legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science 
and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct 
funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming 
from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine 
restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and 
economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I 
introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the 
bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to 
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
  To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce 
Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard . 
. . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and 
ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational 
aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine 
and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and 
services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science, 
engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . . 
transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware 
that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of 
these issues.
  In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and 
considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the 
Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to 
clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong 
views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to 
restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to 
assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the 
promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and 
reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs 
needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term 
restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is 
intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to 
ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with 
emergency response technology and programs, to support improved 
offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising 
this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 1141. A bill to exempt children of certain Filipino World War II 
veterans

[[Page S3449]]

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation 
that would remove the obstacles preventing Filipino veterans of World 
War II from being united with their children, a situation whose roots 
reach back almost eight decades.
  The Philippine Independence Act of 1934 established the Philippines, 
a U.S. possession since 1898, as a commonwealth with certain powers 
over its internal affairs but with sovereign power retained by the 
United States. The Act also established a ten-year timetable for the 
commonwealth to achieve independence from the United States.
  In early 1941, in the face of Japan's military aggression in Asia, 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked his authority, based on the 
retention of U.S. sovereign power over the Philippines to ``call and 
order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States all of 
the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of 
the Philippines.''
  In January of 1942, a month after it attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan 
invaded the Philippines and occupied the commonwealth until August 
1945.
  Two months later, in March of 1942, Congress and President Roosevelt 
enacted the Second War Powers Act, which included the Nationality Act 
of 1940 that authorized the naturalization of all aliens serving in the 
U.S. armed forces.
  The 200,000 Filipinos that served in the U.S. armed forces were 
critical to the Philippine resistance and to the island's liberation in 
August 1945. Approximately 7,000 Filipinos who served outside the 
Philippines were naturalized pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940 
while another 4,000 who served inside the Philippines were naturalized 
between the liberation of the Philippines in August 1945 and the 
expiration of the Act on December 31, 1946.
  In 1990, my distinguished colleague Senator Daniel K. Inouye was 
instrumental in enacting the Immigration Act of 1990. This law offered 
Filipino veterans who had not been naturalized pursuant to the 
Nationality Act of 1940, the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship.
  Of the Filipino veterans who were naturalized for their service in 
the U.S. armed forces, many chose to become U.S. residents. Because the 
offer of naturalization did not extend to their children, these men 
filed permanent resident status petitions for their children who 
remained in the Philippines. Sadly, those children, now adults, have 
languished on the visa waiting list for decades because of backlogs and 
visa limits.
  My bill, the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act of 2011, 
would exempt the children in question from the numerical limitation on 
visas. Family unification has been the centerpiece of U.S. Immigration 
policy for more than a half century, and my bill would reunite the 
Filipino veterans, now in their 80s and 90s, with their children at 
long last.
  The Filipino veterans and their children have been kept apart for far 
too long, and I urge my colleagues to join me in making their long-
awaited reunion possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import 
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, I rise along with my colleagues, 
Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin, to introduce renewal of 
sanctions against the military junta in Burma.
  The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have 
changed for the better in Burma over the past year. After all, 
elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier 
this year, Aung San Suu Kyi was freed and the lead Burmese general Than 
Shwe seemed to retire from political life. However, in Burma as is so 
often the case, things are not what they seem. And that is certainly 
the case here.
  First, the elections that were held in November took place without 
the benefit of international election monitors. All reputable observers 
termed the elections not to be free or fair. This was in large part 
because the National League for Democracy, NLD, Suu Kyi's party and the 
overwhelming winner of the last free elections in the country in 1990, 
was effectively banned by the junta and could not participate in the 
election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties 
could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta could be voiced. And 
the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won 
big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.
  Second, the new regime is essentially the junta with only the 
thinnest democratic veneer pulled over it. The Constitution, which 
places great power in the military as it is, cannot be amended without 
the blessing of the armed forces. Those in parliament are limited in 
how they can criticize the regime. Moreover, sitting atop these new 
institutions is rumored to be a shadowy panel known as the State 
Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and 
which is led by, you guessed it, the military.
  The only legitimately good news of late was the freeing of Suu Kyi. I 
was fortunate enough to be able to speak with her for the first time 
earlier this year. Yet, the extent of her freedom remains open to 
question. She was, of course, freed only following the sham election. 
She and her party have also been publicly threatened by the regime; 
thus, the extent to which she can move about the country or travel 
overseas remains unclear. Further, more than 2,000 other political 
prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than 
before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced 
persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the 
junta.
  Finally, it is worth noting that there are growing national security 
factors that cause one to be even more reluctant than ever to remove 
sanctions and reward bad behavior. The junta's increasingly close 
bilateral military relationship with North Korea is a source of much 
concern in this vein.
  For all of these reasons, I believe the sanctions that are in place 
should remain until true democratic reform has been instituted. That is 
the position of Suu Kyi herself and of the NLD. It is also the position 
of the Obama administration. In a State Department letter dated April 
27, the State Department states that ``in the absence of meaningful 
reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on Burma.'' 
As Suu Kyi herself recently stated, ``[s]o far'' there hasn't been 
``any meaningful change'' since the November elections.
  We should not be fooled by the transparent efforts of the regime. It 
is merely trying to get out from under the international cloud of 
sanctions, without making true changes in how it governs itself, treats 
its people and interacts with the rest of the world.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will once again renew this 
bipartisan measure that in 2010 enjoyed the support of 68 Senate 
cosponsors and was adopted 99-1. The bill is identical to last year's 
in that it does the following: continues the ban on imports from Burma 
into the U.S., including products containing rubies and jadeite; 
authorizes the freezing of assets against a number of Burmese leaders; 
prevents the U.S. from supporting loans for Burma in international 
financial institutions; prohibits the issuance of visas to junta 
officials; and limits the use of correspondent accounts that may 
facilitate services for the regime's leaders. These measures would 
remain in place until the regime undertakes meaningful steps toward 
democratization and reconciliation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 17

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in 
     section 3(a)(1) and section 3A(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the 
     Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

[[Page S3450]]

     
                                  ____
                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2011.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for your letter of March 
     29 regarding sanctions and the nomination of a Special 
     Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.
       On April 14, President Obama nominated Derek Mitchell as 
     the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. 
     Currently serving as the Defense Department's Principal 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for Asian and Pacific 
     Security Affairs, Derek Mitchell has both the regional 
     expertise and diplomatic acumen to successfully enhance our 
     coordination of Burma policy. We will be submitting his 
     nomination shortly for your advice and consent.
       As you note, Burma's elections were neither free nor fair 
     and the regime continues its repressive policies and human 
     rights abuses. We agree with you and the National League for 
     Democracy's conclusions that, in the absence of meaningful 
     reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on 
     Burma. We look forward to soon having Mr. Mitchell as the 
     Special Representative in place to coordinate multilateral 
     sanctions as called for by Section 7 of the Tom Lantos Block 
     JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act.
       We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact us if we can be of further assistance on this or 
     any other matter.
           Sincerely,

                                           Joseph E. Macmanus,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and 
colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint 
resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.
  We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for 
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain 
and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the 
President on this important matter.
  Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing 
this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and 
support.
  Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have 
received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on 
the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime.
  On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the 
democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house 
arrest.
  While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had 
spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house 
arrest.
  Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired 
by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for 
freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.
  Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days 
after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based 
on a sham constitution.
  The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of 
Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power 
using the false veneer of a democratic process.
  Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were 
fooled.
  We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were 
overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 
1990 but annulled by the military junta.
  This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of 
the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for 
Democracy.
  It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of 
Representatives for the military.
  This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity 
and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister 
Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the 
army to form the ``civilian'' political party.
  It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections.
  And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors 
because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.
  It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won 
nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.
  In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for 
Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no 
international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists 
would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.
  President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither 
free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted 
standards associated with legitimate elections.''
  The National League for Democracy described the elections and the 
formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to 
a parody.''
  Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime 
minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's 
new president.
  He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military 
leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.
  So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, 
the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and 
Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law, remain the same.
  So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize 
that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the 
necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted.
  As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we 
must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military 
regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights; 
release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; 
allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; 
and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and 
the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the 
restoration of a democratic government.
  Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, 
democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import 
ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime.
  This also includes tough banking sanctions.
  I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the 
administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta 
by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its 
leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block 
Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.
  Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the 
import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of 
Burma.
  I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen 
more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.
  But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma 
about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international 
community.
  A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for 
Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general 
population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country.
  Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, 
corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
  The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, 
the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and 
the rule of law.
  It concludes:

       Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an 
     all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad 
     spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement 
     of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the 
     democratization process, firmly grounded in national 
     reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should 
     be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions 
     policies.

  I agree.
  So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung 
San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

[[Page S3451]]



                          ____________________