[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 158 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6874-S6879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mr. Tester):
  S. 1741. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an investment tax credit for community wind projects having generation 
capacity of not more than 20 megawatts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Wind

[[Page S6875]]

Act with my friend and colleague Senator Tester from Montana.
  Rural renewable energy development has been one of my top priorities 
since coming to the Senate. America's rural communities have some of 
our country's most abundant renewable energy resources, and I strongly 
believe that community-owned renewable energy projects are among the 
most promising drivers of economic development in our rural 
communities.
  Minnesota has a lot of wind. In the past decade, communities across 
southwestern Minnesota have been transformed by wind power, with 
turbines producing renewable energy to power homes and businesses 
across the midwest. These projects are helping Minnesota meet its 
ambitious goal of obtaining 25 percent of its electricity from 
renewable sources by 2025. As we look to develop more renewables in 
Minnesota and across the country, I want to make sure that rural 
communities are reaping the maximum benefit from these projects.
  That is why community wind is so powerful. When a wind project has 
some level of local ownership, studies have shown that the project will 
have higher local economic impact than conventional projects. That is 
because profits from the project flow to members in the community. 
Those profits are then reinvested in the community, fueling economic 
activity that wouldn't have otherwise happened.
  Like many small and distributed energy projects, community wind 
projects face unique challenges when compared to conventional wind, 
ranging from difficulties accessing financing to the inability to take 
full advantage of Federal tax benefits. Despite these barriers, 
community wind projects have devised innovative financing structures to 
move forward with projects across the country. However, like the larger 
wind industry, community wind still faces great uncertainty with the 
looming expiration of the federal production tax credit for wind at the 
end of 2012.
  Our bill provides long-term certainty to community wind over the next 
5 years by expanding the existing small wind Investment Tax Credit to 
projects with capacity up to 20 MW. There is no restriction on turbine 
size, and the bill prevents the subdivision of large wind projects to 
game the system and claim the credit.
  This bill has support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including 
the American Wind Energy Association to the National Farmers Union, the 
Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota 
Soybean Growers, a broad coalition of Minnesota and national small and 
community wind developers, and rural businesses and nonprofits across 
the country. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator 
Tester today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle to garner support for its passage.
  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. 1741

       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 ``Community Wind Act''.

     SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR COMMUNITY WIND PROJECTS 
                   HAVING GENERATION CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN 20 
                   MEGAWATTS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 48(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small wind energy 
     property' means--
       ``(i) property which uses a qualifying small wind turbine 
     to generate electricity, or
       ``(ii) property which uses 1 or more wind turbines with an 
     aggregate nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts but 
     not more than 20 megawatts.'', and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) 
     and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be appropriate to prevent improper 
     division of property to attempt to meet the limitation under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).''.
       (b) Denial of Production Credit.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking the period at the end and inserting ``or any 
     facility which is a qualified small wind energy property 
     described in section 48(c)(4)(A)(ii) with respect to which 
     the credit under section 48 is allowable.''.
       (c) 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. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1742. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
fraudulently representing a product to be maple syrup; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Collins, Schumer, Sanders and Gillibrand as we introduce this 
legislation to hold accountable those criminals who fraudulently sell 
what they call ``maple'' syrup.
  Vermont iconic maple syrup--painstakingly produced, and prized across 
the Nation and beyond--is one of our state's fine, high-quality, 
natural products. I have been alarmed by the growing number of 
individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup 
when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple 
syrup at all. This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key 
part of Vermont's economy and reputation for quality that has been 
hard-earned through Vermonters' hard work. I know that diligent syrup 
producers in Maine, New York, and other States have been similarly hurt 
by this crime. Our bill, the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law 
Enforcement, or ``MAPLE''Act, will deter this criminal conduct.
  The MAPLE Act creates a felony offense with a 5-year maximum penalty 
for fraudulently selling a product purported to be maple syrup that is 
not, in fact, maple syrup. Under current law, doing so is only a 
misdemeanor offense with a one year penalty.
  The sale of fraudulent maple syrup is a real problem facing consumers 
and producers. Recently, Vermont U.S. Attorney Tris Coffin sought an 
indictment after a Food and Drug Administration investigation revealed 
that a Rhode Island man had been selling cane sugar-based syrup as 
``maple'' syrup and representing to consumers that the syrup was 
authentic. The legislation we introduce today will more effectively 
protect consumers and the maple industry by punishing and deterring 
this deceptive conduct.
  Vermonters, and consumers across the country, should be confident 
that when they buy food, they know exactly what they are getting. The 
fines that may result from criminal violations under current law are 
often not enough to protect the public from harmful or fraudulent 
products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods 
in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business. 
We need to make sure that those who intentionally deceive consumers get 
a trip to jail, not a slap on the wrist. Schemers should not easily be 
able to sully the seal of quality that is associated with genuine 
Vermont maple syrup.
  I have a longstanding commitment to comprehensive food safety and 
food integrity reforms, and our work is not done. Earlier this year, 
the Senate unanimously passed my Food Safety Accountability Act, which 
would hold those criminals who intentionally poison our food supply 
accountable for their crimes. I urge the House to pass that 
noncontroversial bill, and I hope that all Senators will join us in 
supporting the MAPLE 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. 1742

       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 ``Maple Agriculture Protection 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 2011'' or the ``MAPLE Act''.

     SEC. 2. FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTING A PRODUCT AS MAPLE SYRUP.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1041. Fraudulently representing a product as maple 
       syrup

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `maple syrup' 
     means a liquid food--

[[Page S6876]]

       ``(1) derived by--
       ``(A) concentration and heat treatment of the sap of a 
     species of tree in the genus Acer (commonly known as `maple 
     trees'); or
       ``(B) solution in water of maple sugar (commonly know as 
     `maple concrete') made from the sap of a species of tree in 
     the genus Acer;
       ``(2) that is not less than 66 percent by weight of soluble 
     solids derived solely from the sap of a species of tree in 
     the genus Acer; and
       ``(3) the concentration of which may be adjusted by adding 
     water.
       ``(b) Offense.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and willfully 
     introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate 
     commerce a product that is labeled as maple syrup and that is 
     not maple syrup.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     product labeled as maple syrup that is not maple syrup if the 
     label also includes a clear identification of the true nature 
     of the product.
       ``(c) Penalty.--Any person that violates subsection (b) 
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 
     5 years, or both.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1041. Fraudulently representing a product as maple syrup.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Bozman, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, 
        Mr. Thune, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1751. A bill to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper 
management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of 
coal and other fossil fuels; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job 
creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be 
introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce 
the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country.
  In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the 
city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two 
separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 
1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as 
sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses 
the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art.
  We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the 
waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol 
plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well.
  In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that 
after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of 
tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse 
it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for 
highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in 
products such as the shingles we use on our roofs.
  Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that 
coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around 
$12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to 
expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now 
make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the 
plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to 
their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota.
  At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of 
Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a 
facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and 
creates good-paying jobs as well.
  Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs 
bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In 
fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives 
with a large bipartisan majority.
  In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs 
around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now 
work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash-
strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads 
and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they 
live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of 
this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North 
Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction 
now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were 
constructed with these materials.
  First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the 
Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This 
facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus 
million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the 
coal residual building materials.
  On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. 
This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a 
museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The 
building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static 
and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal 
ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of 
powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using 
them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able 
to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this 
legislation.
  It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not 
only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, 
businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates 
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost-
effective material.
  Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is 
estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced 
by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is 
reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent 
of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount 
of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire 
State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation 
standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has.
  Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 
years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, 
despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway 
Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, 
as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in 
coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous 
waste designation.
  In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that 
determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation 
as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally 
counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 
2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to 
frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of 
jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when 
working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's 
pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling 
industry.
  It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements 
under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 
per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. 
That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our 
electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers--
American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout 
this great country.
  It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could 
mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at 
the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am 
introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael 
Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, 
Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans 
and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. 
House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize 
strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring 
we can continue

[[Page S6877]]

this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars 
for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the 
byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal 
standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set 
up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of 
coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA 
regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State 
does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates 
the program for that State.
  Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since 
the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in 
statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, 
it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first 
approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under 
this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established 
standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, 
corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural 
stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed 
to protect the public.
  The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to 
protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and 
electric bills.
  I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken 
a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. 
I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this 
important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Cardin, 
        and Mr. Kerry)
  S. 1753. A bill to require operators of Internet websites that 
provide access to international travel services and market overseas 
vacation destinations to provide on such websites information to 
consumers regarding the potential health and safety risks associated 
with traveling to such vacation destinations, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bi-partisan 
International Travelers Bill of Rights of 2011 with my colleagues 
Senators Scott Brown, Ben Cardin, and John Kerry. It is critical that 
consumers are able to make fully informed decisions, especially with 
regard to health and safety, as more Americans use the Internet to book 
overseas travel.
  This effort is on behalf of my constituent, Nancy Midlock of 
Shorewood, Illinois, whose family suffered a great tragedy when her 8-
year old son, Brent, drowned in a hotel pool, while on vacation in 
Mexico. If Ms. Midlock had been aware that this particular hotel did 
not offer adequate emergency care, perhaps she would have chosen to 
stay at another location where such services were offered.
  Because of this, I feel strongly that websites must do their best to 
make sure travelers are aware of the available onsite health and safety 
services before they book. If a hotel can provide details about their 
fitness center, golf courses, and high speed Internet, it can certainly 
indicate if there is a lifeguard on duty.
  This bipartisan legislation requires website operators to display the 
available health and safety information of their overseas destinations. 
This includes Department of State travel warnings, the availability of 
a nurse or physician on the premises, and the presence of a lifeguard 
on duty. Additionally, the Department of State is required to update 
the record of Deaths of US Citizens Aboard by Non-Natural Causes on a 
monthly basis with increased granularity.
  Finally, several provisions will ensure that the travel industry is 
not burdened with impractical regulations. Website operators will have 
one year to request and display the necessary information, if 
available, and are protected from unfair lawsuits. Online travel 
websites provide an important service to many of us, and I look forward 
to working with them on behalf of all Americans. This bill is an 
important first step to ensure Americans are informed, prepared, and 
ultimately more aware, global travelers.
  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. 1753

       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 ``International Travelers Bill 
     of Rights Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (2) Covered website operator.--The term ``covered website 
     operator'' means an individual or entity that operates an 
     Internet website that provides access to international travel 
     services. Such term includes an overseas vacation destination 
     or a third party that operates an Internet website that 
     offers international travel services.
       (3) International travel services.--The term 
     ``international travel services'' means a service that a 
     consumer can use to reserve lodging at an overseas vacation 
     destination.
       (4) Overseas vacation destination.--The term ``overseas 
     vacation destination'' means a resort, hotel, retreat, 
     hostel, or any other similar lodging located outside the 
     United States.
       (5) United states.--The term ``United States'' means each 
     of the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     SEC. 3. PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL HEALTH 
                   AND SAFETY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OVERSEAS 
                   VACATION DESTINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--A covered website operator shall provide 
     to consumers information on the Internet website of the 
     covered website operator, in a manner the website operator 
     considers appropriate, regarding the potential health and 
     safety risks associated with overseas vacation destinations 
     marketed on such website, if any, including the following:
       (1) Information compiled by the Department of State, 
     including Department of State country-specific travel 
     warnings and alerts.
       (2) Information regarding the onsite health and safety 
     services that are available to consumers at each overseas 
     vacation destination, including whether the destination--
       (A) employs or contracts with a physician or nurse on the 
     premises to provide medical treatment for guests;
       (B) employs or contracts with personnel, other than a 
     physician, nurse, or lifeguard, on the premises who are 
     trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
       (C) has an automated external defibrillator and employs or 
     contracts with 1 or more individuals on the premises trained 
     in its use; and
       (D) employs or contracts with 1 or more lifeguards on the 
     premises trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if the 
     overseas vacation destination has swimming pools or other 
     water-based activities on its premises, or in areas under its 
     control for use by guests.
       (b) Services Not Available 24 Hours a Day.--If the onsite 
     health and safety services described in subsection (a)(2) are 
     not available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a covered 
     website operator who provides information about such services 
     under subsection (a) shall display the hours and days of 
     availability on its Internet website in a manner the covered 
     website operator considers appropriate.
       (c) Minimum Requirement for Obtaining Information.--If a 
     covered website operator does not possess, with respect to an 
     overseas vacation destination, information about the onsite 
     health and safety services required to be displayed on its 
     Internet website under subsection (a), the covered website 
     operator shall, at a minimum, request such information from 
     such destination.
       (d) Information Not Available.--If onsite health and safety 
     services described in subsection (a)(2) are not available at 
     an overseas vacation destination, or if a covered website 
     operator does not possess information about the onsite health 
     and safety services required to be displayed on its Internet 
     website under subsection (a), the covered website operator 
     shall display on the Internet website of the website 
     operator, in a manner the website operator considers 
     appropriate, the following: ``This destination does not 
     provide certain health and safety services, or information 
     regarding such services is not available.''.
       (e) Immunity.--A covered website provider shall not be 
     liable in a civil action in a Federal or State court relating 
     to inaccurate or incomplete information published under 
     subsection (a) regarding an overseas vacation destination 
     that is not owned or operated by the covered website provider 
     if--
       (1) such information was provided by the overseas vacation 
     destination; and
       (2) the covered website provider published such information 
     without knowledge that such information was inaccurate or 
     incomplete, as the case may be.

[[Page S6878]]

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Unfair or Deceptive Acts of Practices.--A violation of 
     this Act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining 
     an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under 
     section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Powers of Commission.--The Commission shall enforce 
     this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
     same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 
     applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into 
     and made a part of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Issuance of Regulations.--The Commission 
     shall prescribe regulations to carry out this Act not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT OF STATE RECORDS OF OVERSEAS DEATHS OF 
                   UNITED STATES CITIZENS FROM NONNATURAL CAUSES.

       (a) Increased Granularity of Data Collected.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 57 of the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2729) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The location of where the death occurred, including 
     the address of the location, the name of the property where 
     the death occurred, and the state or province and 
     municipality of such location, if available.''.
       (b) Increased Frequency of Publication.--Subsection (c) of 
     such section is amended by striking ``at least every six 
     months'' and inserting ``not less frequently than once each 
     month''.
       (c) Monthly Reports to Congress.--Such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Reports to Congress.--Each time the Secretary updates 
     the information made available under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing such 
     information.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Whitehouse):
  S. 1759. A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 
34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to 
participate in activities related to the competition, to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the 
America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships 
to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November.
  I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and 
Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors.
  The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. 
Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup 
of soccer.
  The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the 
events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude 
in San Francisco in September 2013.
  But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take 
place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from 
operating in U.S. waters.
  My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services 
Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup 
events.
  However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted 
to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The 
legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. 
waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related 
to America's Cup Events.
  The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals 
or from receiving compensation for transportation.
  The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between 
ports.
  I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for 
many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a 
noncontroversial bill.
  The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business 
groups in California and Rhode Island.
  Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime 
Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to 
me before I decided to pursue this legislation.
  As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, 
formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the 
U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 
member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to 
shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.
  These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic 
maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of 
this industry is critical for America's economic security and 
independence.
  Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes 
lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring 
this great event back to the United States.
  The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other 
organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and 
stimulate the economy.
  As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series 
will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 
million to local businesses.
  When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the 
economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent 
study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in 
economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This 
is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 
million.
  The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco.
  Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in 
revenue.
  Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic 
activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs.
  The economic impacts of these events are significant.
  The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both 
parties.
  This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will 
facilitate international participation in a globally recognized 
sporting event.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1759

       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 ``America's Cup Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) 34th america's cup.--The term ``34th America's Cup''--
       (A) means the sailing competitions, commencing in 2011, to 
     be held in the United States in response to the challenge to 
     the defending team from the United States, in accordance with 
     the terms of the America's Cup governing Deed of Gift, dated 
     October 24, 1887; and
       (B) if a United States yacht club successfully defends the 
     America's Cup, includes additional sailing competitions 
     conducted by America's Cup Race Management during the 1-year 
     period beginning on the last date of such defense.
       (2) America's cup race management.--The term ``America's 
     Cup Race Management'' means the entity established to provide 
     for independent, professional, and neutral race management of 
     the America's Cup sailing competitions.
       (3) Eligibility certification.--The term ``Eligibility 
     Certification'' means a certification issued under section 4.
       (4) Eligible vessel.--The term ``eligible vessel'' means a 
     competing vessel or supporting vessel of any registry that--
       (A) is recognized by America's Cup Race Management as an 
     official competing vessel, or supporting vessel of, the 34th 
     America's Cup, as evidenced in writing to the Administrator 
     of the Maritime Administration of the Department of 
     Transportation;
       (B) transports not more than 25 individuals, in addition to 
     the crew;
       (C) is not a ferry (as defined under section 2101(10b) of 
     title 46, United States Code;
       (D) does not transport individuals in point-to-point 
     service for hire; and
       (E) does not transport merchandise between ports in the 
     United States.
       (5) Supporting vessel.--The term ``supporting vessel'' 
     means a vessel that is operating in support of the 34th 
     America's Cup by--
       (A) positioning a competing vessel on the race course;
       (B) transporting equipment and supplies utilized for the 
     staging, operations, or broadcast of the competition; or
       (C) transporting individuals who--
       (i) have not purchased tickets or directly paid for their 
     passage; and
       (ii) who are engaged in the staging, operations, or 
     broadcast of the competition, race team personnel, members of 
     the media, or event sponsors.

[[Page S6879]]

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF ELIGIBLE VESSELS.

       Notwithstanding sections 55102, 55103, and 55111 of title 
     46, United States Code, an eligible vessel, operating only in 
     preparation for, or in connection with, the 34th America's 
     Cup competition, may position competing vessels and may 
     transport individuals and equipment and supplies utilized for 
     the staging, operations, or broadcast of the competition from 
     and around the ports in the United States.

     SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION.

       (a) Requirement.--A vessel may not operate under section 3 
     unless the vessel has received an Eligibility Certification.
       (b) Issuance.--The Administrator of the Maritime 
     Administration of the Department of Transportation is 
     authorized to issue an Eligibility Certification with respect 
     to any vessel that the Administrator determines, in his or 
     her sole discretion, meets the requirements set forth in 
     section 2(4).

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       Notwithstanding sections 55102, 55103, and 55111 of title 
     46, United States Code, an Eligibility Certification shall be 
     conclusive evidence to the Secretary of the Department of 
     Homeland Security of the qualification of the vessel for 
     which it has been issued to participate in the 34th America's 
     Cup as a competing vessel or a supporting vessel.

     SEC. 6. PENALTY.

       Any vessel participating in the 34th America's Cup as a 
     competing vessel or supporting vessel that has not received 
     an Eligibility Certification or is not in compliance with 
     section 12112 of title 46, United States Code, shall be 
     subject to the applicable penalties provided in chapters 121 
     and 551 of title 46, United States Code.

                          ____________________