[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.
____________________