Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 52 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 52 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2246-S2257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 2251. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at
709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, as the Robert Boochever United
States Courthouse; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a
piece of legislation honoring a great Alaskan. Robert Boochever was a
giant of my state's judicial community for over 60 years--even longer
than Alaska has been a State. This legislation, naming the Juneau
Federal courthouse facility in Judge Boochever's honor, is a fitting
tribute to his legacy.
Robert Boochever first came to Alaska in the 1946, after having
fought in World War II as a Captain in the U.S. Army. In territorial
Alaska, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for two years, before joining
a private practice in Juneau for almost 25 years, and was before long,
one of the most respected lawyers in the state. He served as President
of the Juneau Bar Association and the Alaska Bar Association.
In 1972, Governor Egan tapped Boochever to serve as an Associate
Justice on the Alaska Supreme Court. He served on the court for eight
years, three of which he had the honor of being the fourth ever Chief
Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.
President Jimmy Carter nominated Judge Boochever to be a Judge of the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 22,
1980. He was quickly confirmed by the U.S. Senate and received his
commission to the Federal bench about a month later. This made Judge
Boochever the first ever Alaskan to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit, a
court he would serve on for the next thirty years.
Judge Boochever is well known for his commitment to the city and the
people of Juneau. He lived in Juneau and maintained an office there for
most of his life. Even when he moved to California in his later years
to facilitate travel and communications, he still maintained his Juneau
office and returned to it every year with his clerks.
In addition to his impressive record of accomplishments and his years
of public service, Judge Boochever was known for his love and
commitment for the law. He is well known as a tireless advocate for the
rights of the disadvantaged and for his strong commitment to protecting
individual freedoms and First Amendment rights.
Naming the Juneau Federal courthouse facility in Judge Boochever's
honor is broadly supported by Alaskans and so appropriate because he
kept his chambers there for many years. In fact, this effort has the
support of the Juneau Bar Association, the Alaska Bar Association's
Historians Committee, the Mayor of Juneau, and many of its residents.
For all these reasons, today I am proud to introduce this legislation
to designate the United States Courthouse in Juneau as the Robert
Boochever United States Courthouse. He was a great man and this is a
fine way to remember all he did for my State.
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. 2251

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT BOOCHEVER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

(a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at
709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and
designated as the ``Robert Boochever United States
Courthouse''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert Boochever United
States Courthouse''.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Franken):
S. 2253. A bill to require individuals who file under the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 to disclose any financial accounts that are or
have been deposited in a country that is a tax haven; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the old adage that sunlight is the best
disinfectant is an old adage for one main reason: It is true.
That is why I am introducing the Financial Disclosure to Reduce Tax
Haven Abuse Act of 2012, to require candidates for Federal office and
certain Federal employees to disclose any financial interest they or
their spouse hold that is held in an offshore tax haven.
It might seem ridiculous that we don't already know whether
candidates and Members of Congress are using offshore tax havens.
However, under current law, those individuals are not required to
account for where their financial interests are held.
A January 26, 2012, article in the Los Angeles Times reported that
Mitt Romney--a candidate for the Republican nomination for President--
failed to disclose a number of accounts in countries with very low tax
burdens.
Specifically, according to a review of the candidate's tax returns
and financial disclosure statements:

At least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple's
2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the
same fashion on Romney's most recent financial disclosure,
including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as
Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

The Romney campaign called the discrepancies ``trivial.''
But this information is not trivial to the American people's trust in
government, and the use of offshore tax havens is not trivial to our
economy.
Studies have found that tax offshore tax havens, and other similar
loopholes, cost taxpayers $100 billion per year.
I want to commend Senators Levin and Conrad for the work they have
done to shine a light on these nefarious practices.
Those two Senators successfully included a provision in the Senate
Transportation bill that will give the Treasury Department greater
tools to crack down on offshore tax haven abuse. It is an important
step forward, but more must be done.
The American people are rightly concerned that the wealthy and well-
connected are skirting our laws to avoid taxation, and they deserve to
know that the people who hope to represent them in Washington--and
those who are trying to attain those positions--aren't cheating the
system.
Nothing in this bill impinges on an individual's right to hold
financial interests within the global economy. If there is a legitimate
reason for a candidate or a Member of Congress or any other individual
who files a financial disclosure to hold their money in an account on
the Cayman Islands, they should have no problem explaining it to
voters. But any individual who has or wants to have the public's trust
should be honest about practices they have engaged in that cost the
taxpayers they wish to represent billions of dollars every year. This
is an important step that we must take to restore the public trust.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.

[[Page S2247]]

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record as follows:

S. 2253

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 ``Financial Disclosure to
Reduce Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS HELD IN TAX HAVENS.

Section 102(b)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, with a specific
accounting of any financial interest held by the covered
individual or their spouse in a country that is considered as
a tax haven as listed by the Secretary of the Treasury and
made available to the filer'' after ``calendar year''; and
(2) inserting at the end the following:
``In compiling the list of tax havens under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary of the Treasury should consider for inclusion
those jurisdictions which have been previously and publicly
identified by the Internal Revenue Service as secrecy
jurisdictions in Federal court proceedings.''.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2256. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
grants for community-based mental health infrastructure improvement; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague,
Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure
Improvements Act.
According to the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island, 38,000
adults and 11,000 children in the state have a serious mental illness,
and approximately 15 percent of Rhode Island adults report suffering
from serious psychological distress every year. Unfortunately, mental
illness is often linked to poor physical health--obesity, high blood
pressure, and high cholesterol.
Community mental health centers help these individuals get the mental
and behavioral health care that they need to lead healthier, more
productive lives through no or low-cost treatments. This cost structure
has been particularly critical throughout the recent recession and as
our economy continues to recover. Individuals and families didn't have
to forgo health care because they lost their job or health insurance.
The proof is in the numbers. In just the last 6 months of 2010,
Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island treated nearly 30,000
individuals. The demand for care will only grow as more Americans gain
access to comprehensive, affordable health insurance in 2014.
It is critical that Community Mental Health Centers have the
infrastructure necessary to treat every individual who needs care. In
Rhode Island, some of the community mental health centers are in older
buildings that need updating. Others need more space to be able to meet
current demand and prepare for the expected increase in patients in
2014. These needs are true of community mental health centers across
the country. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure
Improvements Act would help ensure that Community Mental Health Centers
have the resources to construct and modernize these mental and
behavioral health facilities.
I am pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader
mental health care bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, that I
joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to improve our mental and behavioral health care
delivery system, and urge my colleagues to support these important
bills.
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. 2256

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-Based Mental
Health Infrastructure Improvements Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT.

Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART H--COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

``SEC. 560. GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary may award grants to
eligible entities to expend funds for the construction or
modernization of facilities used to provide mental health and
substance abuse services to individuals.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means--
``(1) a State that is the recipient of a Community Mental
Health Services Block Grant under subpart I of part B of
title XIX and a Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant under subpart II of such part; or
``(2) an Indian tribe or a tribal organization (as such
terms are defined in sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act).
``(c) Application.--A eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing--
``(1) a plan for the construction or modernization of
facilities used to provide mental health and substance abuse
services to individuals that--
``(A) designates a single State or tribal agency as the
sole agency for the supervision and administration of the
grant;
``(B) contains satisfactory evidence that such agency so
designated will have the authority to carry out the plan;
``(C) provides for the designation of an advisory council,
which shall include representatives of nongovernmental
organizations or groups, and of the relevant State or tribal
agencies, that aided in the development of the plan and that
will implement and monitor any grant awarded to the eligible
entity under this section;
``(D) in the case of an eligible entity that is a State,
includes a copy of the State plan under section 1912(b) and
section 1932(b);
``(E)(i) includes a listing of the projects to be funded by
the grant; and
``(ii) in the case of an eligible entity that is a State,
explains how each listed project helps the State in
accomplishing its goals and objectives under the Community
Mental Health Services Block Grant under subpart I of part B
of title XIX and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant under subpart II of such part;
``(F) includes assurances that the facilities will be used
for a period of not less than 10 years for the provision of
community-based mental health or substance abuse services for
those who cannot pay for such services, subject to subsection
(e); and
``(G) in the case of a facility that is not a public
facility, includes the name and executive director of the
entity who will provide services in the facility; and
``(2) with respect to each construction or modernization
project described in the application--
``(A) a description of the site for the project;
``(B) plans and specifications for the project and State or
tribal approval for the plans and specifications;
``(C) assurance that the title for the site is or will be
vested with either the public entity or private nonprofit
entity who will provide the services in the facility;
``(D) assurance that adequate financial resources will be
available for the construction or major rehabilitation of the
project and for the maintenance and operation of the
facility;
``(E) estimates of the cost of the project; and
``(F) the estimated length of time for completion of the
project.
``(d) Subgrants by States.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this
section may award a subgrant to a qualified community program
(as such term is used in section 1913(b)(1)).
``(2) Use of funds.--Subgrants awarded pursuant to
paragraph (1) may be used for activities such as--
``(A) the construction, expansion, and modernization of
facilities used to provide mental health and substance abuse
services to individuals;
``(B) acquiring and leasing facilities and equipment
(including paying the costs of amortizing the principal of,
and paying the interest on, loans for such facilities and
equipment) to support or further the operation of the
subgrantee;
``(C) the construction and structural modification
(including equipment acquisition) of facilities to permit the
integrated delivery of behavioral health and primary care of
specialty medical services to individuals with co-occurring
mental illnesses and chronic medical or surgical diseases at
a single service site; and
``(D) acquiring information technology required to
accommodate the clinical needs of primary and specialty care
professionals.
``(3) Limitation.--Not to exceed 15 percent of grant funds
may be used for activities described in paragraph (2)(D).
``(e) Request To Transfer Obligation.--An eligible entity
that receives a grant under this section may submit a request
to the Secretary for permission to transfer the 10-year
obligation of facility use, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(F), to another facility.

[[Page S2248]]

``(f) Agreement to Federal Share.--As a condition of
receipt of a grant under this section, an eligible entity
shall agree, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the
entity in carrying out the activities for which such grant is
awarded, that the entity will make available non-Federal
contributions (which may include State or local funds, or
funds from the qualified community program) in an amount
equal to not less than $1 for every $1 of Federal funds
provided under the grant.
``(g) Reporting.--
``(1) Reporting by states.--During the 10-year period
referred to in subsection (c)(1)(F), the Secretary shall
require that a State that receives a grant under this section
submit, as part of the report of the State required under the
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant under subpart I
of part B of title XIX and the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant under subpart II of such part, a
description of the progress on--
``(A) the projects carried out pursuant to the grant under
this section; and
``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose for which they were funded under
such grant during such 10-year period.
``(2) Reporting by indian tribes and tribal
organizations.--The Secretary shall establish reporting
requirements for Indian tribes and tribal organizations that
receive a grant under this section. Such reporting
requirements shall include that such Indian tribe or tribal
organization provide a description of the progress on--
``(A) the projects carried out pursuant to the grant under
this section; and
``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose for which they were funded under
such grant during the 10-year period referred to in
subsection (c)(1)(F).
``(h) Failure To Meet Obligations.--
``(1) In general.--If an eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section fails to meet any of the obligations
of the entity required under this section, the Secretary
shall take appropriate steps, which may include--
``(A) requiring that the entity return the unused portion
of the funds awarded under this section for the projects that
are incomplete; and
``(B) extending the length of time that the entity must
ensure that the facility involved is used for the purposes
for which it is intended, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(F).
``(2) Hearing.--Prior to requesting the return of the funds
under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall provide the
entity notice and opportunity for a hearing.
``(i) Collaboration.--The Secretary may establish
intergovernmental and interdepartmental memorandums of
agreement as necessary to carry out this section.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.''.
______

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Reed):
S. 2257. A bill to increase access to community behavioral health
services for all Americans and to improve Medicaid reimbursement for
community behavioral health services; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. STABENOW. 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. 2257

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 ``Excellence in Mental Health
Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTERS.

Section 1913 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300x 2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``community mental
health services'' and inserting ``behavioral health services
(of the type offered by federally-qualified community
behavioral health centers consistent with subsection
(c)(3))'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) services under the plan will be provided only through
appropriate, qualified community programs (which may include
federally-qualified community behavioral health centers,
child mental health programs, psychosocial rehabilitation
programs, mental health peer-support programs, outpatient
addiction treatment programs, acute detoxification services,
and mental health primary consumer-directed programs); and'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``community mental health
centers'' and inserting ``federally-qualified community
behavioral health centers''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Criteria for Federally-Qualified Community Behavioral
Health Centers.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall certify, and
recertify at least every 5 years, federally-qualified
community behavioral health centers as meeting the criteria
specified in this subsection.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of the Excellence in Mental Health Act, the
Administrator, in consultation with State Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Authorities, shall issue final regulations
for certifying non-profit or local government centers as
centers under paragraph (1).
``(3) Criteria.--The criteria referred to in subsection
(b)(2) are that the center performs each of the following:
``(A) Provide services in locations that ensure services
will be available and accessible promptly and in a manner
which preserves human dignity and assures continuity of care.
``(B) Provide services in a mode of service delivery
appropriate for the target population.
``(C) Provide individuals with a choice of service options
where there is more than one efficacious treatment.
``(D) Employ a core staff of clinical staff that is
multidisciplinary and culturally and linguistically
competent.
``(E) Provide services, within the limits of the capacities
of the center, to any individual residing or employed in the
service area of the center, regardless of the ability of the
individual to pay.
``(F) Provide, directly or through contract, to the extent
covered for adults in the State Medicaid plan under title XIX
of the Social Security Act and for children in accordance
with section 1905(r) of such Act regarding early and periodic
screening, diagnosis, and treatment, each of the following
services:
``(i) Screening, assessment, and diagnosis, including risk
assessment.
``(ii) Person-centered treatment planning or similar
processes, including risk assessment and crisis planning.
``(iii) Outpatient mental health and substance use
services, including screening, assessment, diagnosis,
psychotherapy, medication management, and integrated
treatment for mental illness and substance abuse which shall
be evidence-based (including cognitive behavioral therapy and
other such therapies which are evidence-based).
``(iv) Outpatient clinic primary care screening and
monitoring of key health indicators and health risk
(including screening for diabetes, hypertension, and
cardiovascular disease and monitoring of weight, height, body
mass index (BMI), blood pressure, blood glucose or HbA1C, and
lipid profile).
``(v) Crisis mental health services, including 24-hour
mobile crisis teams, emergency crisis intervention services,
and crisis stabilization.
``(vi) Targeted case management (services to assist
individuals gaining access to needed medical, social,
educational, and other services and applying for income
security and other benefits to which they may be entitled).
``(vii) Psychiatric rehabilitation services including
skills training, assertive community treatment, family
psychoeducation, disability self-management, supported
employment, supported housing services, therapeutic foster
care services, and such other evidence-based practices as the
Secretary may require.
``(viii) Peer support and counselor services and family
supports.
``(G) Maintain linkages, and where possible enter into
formal contracts with the following:
``(i) Federally qualified health centers.
``(ii) Inpatient psychiatric facilities and substance use
detoxification, post-detoxification step-down services, and
residential programs.
``(iii) Adult and youth peer support and counselor
services.
``(iv) Family support services for families of children
with serious mental or substance use disorders.
``(v) Other community or regional services, supports, and
providers, including schools, child welfare agencies,
juvenile and criminal justice agencies and facilities,
housing agencies and programs, employers, and other social
services.
``(vi) Onsite or offsite access to primary care services.
``(vii) Enabling services, including outreach,
transportation, and translation.
``(viii) Health and wellness services, including services
for tobacco cessation.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall
be construed as prohibiting States receiving funds
appropriated through the Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant under subpart I of part B of this title from
financing qualified community programs (whether such programs
meet the definition of eligible programs prior to or after
the date of enactment of this subsection).
``(5) Limitation.--With respect to federally-qualified
behavioral health centers authorized under this subsection,
20 percent of the total number of such centers shall become
newly eligible to receive reimbursement under this section in
each of the first 5 years after the initial year of
eligibility through fiscal year 2022. In implementing this
paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure geographic diversity of
such sites, take into account the ability of such sites to
provide required services, and the ability of such sites to
report required data.''.

[[Page S2249]]

SEC. 3. MEDICAID COVERAGE AND PAYMENT FOR COMMUNITY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER SERVICES.

(a) Payment for Services Provided by Federally-Qualified
Community Behavioral Health Centers.--Section 1902(bb) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(bb)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``and Rural Health
Clinics'' and inserting ``, Federally-Qualified Community
Behavioral Health Centers, and Rural Health Clinics'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(and beginning with
fiscal year 2013 with respect to services furnished on or
after January 1, 2013, and each succeeding fiscal year, for
services described in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished by a
federally-qualified community behavioral health center)''
after ``by a rural health clinic'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking the heading and inserting ``Initial fiscal
year'';
(B) by inserting ``(or, in the case of services described
in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished by a federally-qualified
community behavioral health center, for services furnished on
and after January 1, 2013, during fiscal year 2013)'' after
``January 1, 2001, during fiscal year 2001'';
(C) by inserting ``(or, in the case of services described
in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished by a federally-qualified
community behavioral health center, during fiscal years 2010
and 2011)'' after ``1999 and 2000''; and
(D) by inserting ``(or, in the case of services described
in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished by a federally-qualified
community behavioral health center, during fiscal year
2013)'' before the period;
(4) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Fiscal year 2002 and
succeeding'' and inserting ``Succeeding''; and
(B) by inserting ``(or, in the case of services described
in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished by a federally-qualified
community behavioral health center, for services furnished
during fiscal year 2013 or a succeeding fiscal year)'' after
``2002 or a succeeding fiscal year'';
(5) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``(or as a federally-qualified community
behavioral health center after fiscal year 2011)'' after ``or
rural health clinic after fiscal year 2000'';
(B) by striking ``furnished by the center or'' and
inserting ``furnished by the federally qualified health
center, services described in section 1905(a)(2)(D) furnished
by the federally-qualified community behavioral health
center, or'';
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``or rural health
clinic'' and inserting ``, federally-qualified community
behavioral health center, or rural health clinic'';
(6) in paragraph (5), in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B),
by striking ``or rural health clinic'' and inserting ``,
federally-qualified community behavioral health center, or
rural health clinic''; and
(7) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or to a rural health
clinic'' and inserting ``, to a federally-qualified community
behavioral health center for services described in section
1905(a)(2)(D), or to a rural health clinic''.
(b) Inclusion of Community Behavioral Health Center
Services in the Term Medical Assistance.--Section 1905(a)(2)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``(C)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (D) federally-qualified community
behavioral health center services (as defined in subsection
(l)(4))''.
(c) Definition of Federally-Qualified Community Behavioral
Health Center Services.--Section 1905(l) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(l)) is amended by adding at the
end the following paragraph:
``(4)(A) The term `community behavioral health center
services' means services furnished to an individual at a
federally-qualified community behavioral health center (as
defined by subparagraph (B)).
``(B) The term `federally qualified community behavioral
health center' means an entity that is certified under
section 1913(c) of the Public Health Service Act as meeting
the criteria described in paragraph (3) of such section.''.

SEC. 4. COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT.

Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART H--COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

``SEC. 560. GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

[[Page S2250]]

``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose for which they were funded under
such grant during such 10-year period.
``(2) Reporting by indian tribes and tribal
organizations.--The Secretary shall establish reporting
requirements for Indian tribes and tribal organizations that
receive a grant under this section. Such reporting
requirements shall include that such Indian tribe or tribal
organization provide a description of the progress on--
``(A) the projects carried out pursuant to the grant under
this section; and
``(B) the assurances that the facilities involved continue
to be used for the purpose for which they were funded under
such grant during the 10-year period referred to in
subsection (c)(1)(F).
``(h) Failure To Meet Obligations.--
``(1) In general.--If an eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section fails to meet any of the obligations
of the entity required under this section, the Secretary
shall take appropriate steps, which may include--
``(A) requiring that the entity return the unused portion
of the funds awarded under this section for the projects that
are incomplete; and
``(B) extending the length of time that the entity must
ensure that the facility involved is used for the purposes
for which it is intended, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(F).
``(2) Hearing.--Prior to requesting the return of the funds
under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall provide the
entity notice and opportunity for a hearing.
``(i) Collaboration.--The Secretary may establish
intergovernmental and interdepartmental memorandums of
agreement as necessary to carry out this section.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.''.

SEC. 5. EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN 340B PROGRAM.

Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(P) An entity receiving funds under subpart I of part B
of title XIX of this Act for the provision of community
mental health services.
``(Q) An entity receiving funds under subpart II of part B
of title XIX of this Act for the provision of treatment
services for substance abuse.''.
______

By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Crapo,
and Mr. Johanns):
S. 2264. A bill to provide liability protection for claims based on
the design, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction into
commerce, or use of certain fuels and fuel additives, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy
legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to
help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas
prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us
do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower
cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel
our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national
energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly
have an energy security plan for our country.
I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We
are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very
well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA
indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is
$3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current
administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the
national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine
States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In
Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few
blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a
gallon.
This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard-
working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their
car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions
are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have
to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.
What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates
downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes
prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and
increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing
supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in
the future.
We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about
growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and
oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with
our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to
help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all
types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national
security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed
back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic
environment that will help us do that.
This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first
bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10
million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North
America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million
barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but
oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these
different sources.
Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar
that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from
Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies
and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in
this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and
the United States over the next 15 years.
The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that
will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources,
traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this
Domestic Fuels Act.
The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with
the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year
timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United
States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy--
biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include,
just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and
the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy
than we consume.
Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of
gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what
that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on
crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to
develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types
of energy resources as well.
Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for
national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years.
There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we
do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing
``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of
the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of
energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on
a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will
truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5
to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and
Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore
and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.
Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy.
We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends
and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce
right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's
increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that
work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more
energy--with better environmental stewardship.
We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security
plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very
commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a
bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production,
increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based
approaches, and use technology

[[Page S2251]]

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.
One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the
Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the
national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a
straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the
infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in
Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1
is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work
with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to
China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure
and work with Canada.
What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of
arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we
don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that.
The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6-
percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling
production.
The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I
mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology
to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we
talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation
method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is
essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same
greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So
let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the
Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.
We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than
getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It
is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win
with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We
need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right
approach to how we regulate these things in place.
That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of
exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all
right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get
whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best
possible price.
It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the
pump.
Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer
has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might
be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of
petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly
service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But
think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks,
different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of
fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer
gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they
can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?
But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one,
think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in
there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based
gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want
to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it
with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want
to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional
diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we
have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural
gas--how do they do it? That is the point.
What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process
so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and
equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we
have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the
pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels,
drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice,
lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as
well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce
gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those
products to consumers.
This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past.
This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the
government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering
the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower
costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We
give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense
and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them
liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these
different products without worrying about being sued and losing their
livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple
pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best
serve their consumers and build their business.
This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the
right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and
empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather
than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind
of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about
saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy
development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference
for the American consumer, and we can do it.
This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator
Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy
Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have
many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working
with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing
companion legislation as well.
The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad-
based support from companies and people who work in the traditional
energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the
equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and
the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all
onboard.
Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we
have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and
also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American
Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro
Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service
stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing
this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck
Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the
manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as
well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also
the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.
Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in
place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our
country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and
they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is
exactly what we need to do.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the
American people.
______

By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 2271. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the time for making S corporation elections, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business
Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi.
I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to
acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one

[[Page S2252]]

of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working
to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small
businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment
for entrepreneurs.
That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and
more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses.
When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to
organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity.
Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax
returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the
corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual
income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves
small business owners money.
To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through
what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to
the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a
year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means
that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a
full year before they have to do their taxes.
Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this
rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must
wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation,
which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late
election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly.
This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns
could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S
Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main
reasons that returns are rejected as filed.
The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the
needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election
process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S
Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations
outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to
Congress.
Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election
Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines.
It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses
with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of
taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline
and suffer negative tax consequences.
To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation
would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S
Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation
tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill
out an additional election form.
Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are
the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we
need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that
will get our economy growing again.
Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing
we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making
it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S
Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate
on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new
workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and
learning about complicated business tax rules.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the
President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.
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. 2271

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Election
Simplification Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR MAKING S CORPORATION ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1362 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) When Made.--
``(1) Rules for new corporations.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2)--
``(A) In general.--An election under subsection (a) may be
made by a small business corporation for any taxable year at
any time during the period--
``(i) beginning on the first day of the taxable year for
which made, and
``(ii) ending on the due date (with extensions) for filing
the return for the taxable year.
``(B) Certain elections treated as made for next taxable
year.--If--
``(i) an election under subsection (a) is made for any
taxable year within the period described in subparagraph (A),
but
``(ii) either--

``(I) on 1 or more days in such taxable year and before the
day on which the election was made the corporation did not
meet the requirements of subsection (b) of section 1361, or
``(II) 1 or more of the persons who held stock in the
corporation during such taxable year and before the election
was made did not consent to the election,

then such election shall be treated as made for the following
taxable year.
``(C) Election made after due date treated as made for
following taxable year.--If--
``(i) a small business corporation makes an election under
subsection (a) for any taxable year, and
``(ii) such election is made after the due date (with
extensions) for filing the return for such year and on or
before the due date (with extensions) for filing the return
for the following taxable year,

then such election shall be treated as made for the following
taxable year.
``(2) Rules for existing c corporations.--In the case of
any small business corporation which was a C corporation for
the taxable year prior to the taxable year for which the
election is made under subsection (a), the rules under this
paragraph shall apply in lieu of the rules under paragraph
(1):
``(A) In general.--An election under subsection (a) may be
made by a small business corporation for any taxable year--
``(i) at any time during the preceding taxable year, or
``(ii) at any time during the taxable year and on or before
the 15th day of the 3d month of the taxable year.
``(B) Certain elections made during 1st 2\1/2\ months
treated as made for next taxable year.--If--
``(i) an election under subsection (a) is made for any
taxable year during such year and on or before the 15th day
of the 3d month of such year, but
``(ii) either--

then such election shall be treated as made for the following
taxable year.
``(C) Election made after 1st 2\1/2\ months treated as made
for following taxable year.--If--
``(i) a small business corporation makes an election under
subsection (a) for any taxable year, and
``(ii) such election is made after the 15th day of the 3d
month of the taxable year and on or before the 15th day of
the 3rd month of the following taxable year,

then such election shall be treated as made for the following
taxable year.
``(D) Taxable years of 2\1/2\ months or less.--For purposes
of this paragraph, an election for a taxable year made not
later than 2 months and 15 days after the first day of the
taxable year shall be treated as timely made during such
year.
``(3) Authority to treat late elections, etc., as timely.--
If--
``(A) an election under subsection (a) is made for any
taxable year after the date prescribed by this subsection for
making such election for such taxable year or no such
election is made for any taxable year, and
``(B) the Secretary determines that there was reasonable
cause for the failure to timely make such election,

the Secretary may treat such an election as timely made for
such taxable year.
``(4) Manner of election.--Elections may be made at any
time as provided in this subsection by filing a form
prescribed by the Secretary. For purposes of any election
described under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
that the election may be made on any timely filed small
business corporation return for such taxable year, with the
consents of all persons who held stock in the corporation
during such taxable year included therewith.
``(5) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations, rules, or other guidance as may be
necessary or appropriate for purposes of applying this
subsection.''.

[[Page S2253]]

(b) Revocations.--Paragraph (1) of section 1362(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' in subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``subparagraphs (D) and (E)'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Authority to treat late revocations as timely.--If--
``(i) a revocation under subparagraph (A) is made for any
taxable year after the date prescribed by this paragraph for
making such revocation for such taxable year or no such
revocation is made for any taxable year, and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that there was reasonable
cause for the failure to timely make such revocation,

the Secretary may treat such a revocation as timely made for
such taxable year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to elections for taxable years beginning after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2273. A bill to designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in
Talkeetna, Alaska, as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would officially rename the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna,
Alaska, the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.
The Talkeetna Ranger Station, which is the home of Denali National
Park's mountaineering rangers, sits just about 100 miles south of the
entrance to the park. Of course, the landmark that's most commonly
linked to both the park and the ranger station itself happens to be the
mountain that features a summit which represents the highest point in
North America: Denali.
In fact, anybody who intends to attempt a climb of Mt. McKinley is
required to first stop at the Talkeetna Ranger Station for their permit
and mountain orientation.
It is only fitting, then, that we honor the memory of Alaska Native
Walter Harper by forever linking his name with this specific ranger
station. It was Mr. Harper, that 100 years ago next year became the
first person to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley.
My bill is a simple one, and it is not likely to gain much notice
outside of Alaska. Within my home state, however, this small gesture
means a great deal. Alaskans, like the people who call any other state
home, are proud of the historical accomplishments of their fellow
Alaskans. Walter Harper was one such Alaskan, and his feat is one that
will always be remembered.
Certainly, officially designating the Talkeetna Ranger Station--the
very building where any hiker today planning to climb Mt. McKinley is
required to first stop--the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station is a
fitting tribute to the man himself, as well as his spot in our state's
history books.
June 7 of next year, 2013, will mark the 100 year anniversary of Mr.
Harper's historic climb. It would truly be special for Alaska and
Alaskans to have this designation in place by that date.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Coburn, and Mr.
Sessions):
S. 2276. A bill to permit Federal officers to remove cases involving
crimes of violence to Federal court; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that I
am introducing on behalf of a bipartisan group of Senators, the Officer
Safety Act of 2012, S. 2276. This bill allows a Federal law enforcement
agent, who stops a violent crime while off-duty and is indicted in a
State court for those actions, to petition for the State criminal
prosecution against him to be removed to Federal court.
The bill effectuates this change by amending the Federal removal
statute, found in 28 United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when
a Federal law enforcement officer is acting under the color of his
office.
As a 2003 Judiciary Committee report stated, ``Law enforcement
officers are never `off-duty.' '' Many are required to carry an off-
duty weapon. When they fly on personal business, they are expected to
carry their weapon and check-in with the airline as a Federal law
enforcement agent so they can defend the pilots and passengers if
something bad happens. In fact, Federal agents are specifically paid to
be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Agents can be disciplined
if they are not available when called.
They are not even allowed to engage in activities on their personal
time that regular citizens take for granted, like coaching their kids'
sports teams, if it might interfere with their ability to respond to a
crisis.
Federal law enforcement agents are extensively trained, at the
expense of the taxpayer for the benefit of the taxpayer. They not only
train in basic academies, but they are required to participate in
additional and regular training and re-certifications many times each
year. If training is missed or if standards are not up to par, the
agent is disciplined or removed. Federal law enforcement agencies take
training requirements very seriously. The United States is known for
having the best trained Federal law enforcement officers in the world.
So what if one of these exceptionally trained Federal law enforcement
agents walks into the grocery store on a Saturday and witnesses a woman
being repeatedly hit by her husband; do we want him to walk past the
woman? No. The taxpayers spend money on his training so that he can
protect victims, not walk away from them. In this situation, we all
hope that he would use his training to protect the victim. But when he
steps in to protect the victim from a crime of violence occurring in
his presence, he risks state criminal prosecution and damage to his
career. That might lead him to hesitate. This is contrary to good
public policy. If we were the victim in this scenario, every one of us
would want that Federal law enforcement officer to help us.
If a Federal agent acts to protect an individual in his presence from
a crime of violence, as taxpayer dollars have trained him to do, and
then is indicted in State court for that act, he should have the right
to defend himself within the Federal court system.
So the Officer Safety Act amends the removal statute, found in Title
28, United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when a Federal law
enforcement officer is acting under the color of his office. This bill
does not provide immunity for law enforcement agents, and it does not
grant them additional authority. It doesn't even guarantee that the
case will be moved from State to Federal court: the State will be heard
and its position will be weighed by the judge before deciding if
removal is appropriate. It does allow a Federal law enforcement
officer/agent, who is indicted in a State court for actions related to
his protection of a victim of a violent crime that is committed in the
officer's presence, to petition for that criminal case to be removed to
Federal court, where the officer will be required to defend his
actions.
Current law provides that removal is proper so long as defendants
demonstrate that they are officers of the United States that acted
``under color of'' their office and have a ``colorable federal
defense''.
In general, a Federal agent acts ``under color of'' his office when
he takes actions that are necessary and reasonable for the discharge of
his Federal responsibilities. Accordingly, the prototypical example of
a Federal officer acting under color of his office is a Federal law
enforcement officer who kills someone while performing an act related
to Federal law enforcement and, in the subsequent State homicide
prosecution, claims he was acting in self-defense and/or is entitled to
official immunity. The Supreme Court has upheld this
prototypical example as appropriate for removal from State court to
Federal court.

The primary restraint on the current statute's scope is its
limitation to defendants who acted under color of Federal office or, in
other words, while performing official duties. Defendants must show in
their petition for removal that there is a causal nexus between the
actions challenged and their Federal duties.
The history of the removal statute explains why this is important.
The statute dates back to 1815. It was passed in response to the New
England States' opposition to the trade embargo with England during the
War of 1812. The law provided for the removal to Federal court of any
suit or prosecution commenced in State court against a Federal customs
officer or other persons enforcing Federal customs laws.

[[Page S2254]]

Thus, Federal agents did not need to fear performing their jobs because
the local authorities opposed the embargo and wanted to stop them from
enforcing it.
A few decades later, the U.S. Government encountered a similar
problem in South Carolina, which in 1833 declared certain Federal
tariff laws unenforceable within its borders. Congress responded by
authorizing the removal of any suit or prosecution commenced in a State
court against an officer of the United States for the enforcement of
the Federal revenue laws.
During the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, Congress'
disenchantment with State courts in the South led to new Federal
officer removal laws. In the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act, Congress provided
for the removal of suits or prosecutions against persons acting under
Federal authority for actions, or failures to act, during the Civil
War. In addition, Congress passed a removal statute similar to those of
1815 and 1833, authorizing the removal of suits or prosecutions
commenced in State court against Federal officers for actions, or
omissions, related to the collection of Federal revenue. However, it
was not until the enactment of the Judicial Code of 1948 that Congress
extended the statute to cover all Federal officers.
The courts view the history behind section 1442 and its statutory
predecessors as justification for construing the statute broadly to
assure the supremacy of U.S. law and protect Federal operations against
interference from State judicial proceedings.
This bill does not infringe upon States' rights, as they retain the
same due process rights to be heard on the question of removal that
have existed since the early 1800s. In fact, this Congress passed a
bill by unanimous consent that amended this statute, without a word
about States' rights.
Today, Federal law enforcement officers, whether or not in uniform,
require protections when they take actions to assist citizens. Civil
liability protections are provided to officers under The Good Samaritan
Act, codified at Title 28, United States Code, Section 2671. This bill,
the Officer Safety Act, while modeled on the Good Samaritan Act, is
narrower, more restrictive, and provides no liability protection.
Rather, this bill clarifies the ``color of law'' prong required in the
removal process, as courts have invited Congress to clarify.
The bill makes no change to the current standards governing when
removal is permissible, and therefore leaves alone existing standards
and case law. But it provides that in three situations, the law
enforcement officer who is a defendant in a State criminal prosecution
will be deemed to have acted under color of his or her office: when the
officer protects a victim from a violent crime committed in the
presence of the officer; when the officer provides immediate assistance
to an individual who suffered or is about to suffer imminent bodily
harm; and when the officer prevents the escape of an individual the
officer reasonably believes committed or was about to commit, in the
presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in or was
likely to result in serious bodily injury. I believe that in these
situations, the Federal courts should always determine that the law
enforcement officer acted under the color of his or her office for
purposes of determining whether to grant the officer's removal
petition. But the courts remain free to determine under current law
that there are other circumstances in which an officer seeking removal
satisfies the color of office standard.
So the bill is a modest change that nevertheless provides an
important layer of safety for the people who risk their lives day-in
and day-out to protect us. It will help make our communities safer and
protect those who are sworn to guard and serve the American public.
This principle and this bill are supported by the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Agents Association, and the National Border Patrol Council.
I want to thank Senator Coons, a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, who co-chairs the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, and is a
co-sponsor on this bill. He understands the need to support law
enforcement officers who risk their lives every day so that we can
sleep safely at night.
Further, I want to thank Senators Coburn and Sessions, also members
of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsors. They, too, understand this
allows us to support Federal agents without spending a dollar.
``Law enforcement officers are never `off-duty.' '' To expect them to
standby while a victim suffers violent acts in his presence is contrary
to the oath they take to protect and renders their tax-funded training
wasted as a citizen becomes a victim. Please join me in protecting
those who protect us.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2280. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act and the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to require certain creditors to obtain
certifications from institutions of higher education, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau reported that outstanding student loan debt in
America has hit the $1 trillion mark--student loans.
A CFPB official was cited by Bloomberg News saying that ``excessive
student debt could slow the recovery of the housing market, as young
people repay money for their education rather than buying homes.''
Massive student debt is also affecting consumers' ability to purchase
goods and services.
Yesterday, at the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government hearing focusing on student debt, Treasury Secretary
Geithner came to talk about it. While the overall growth of student
indebtedness is troubling, the most pressing concern is private student
loans.
Secretary Geithner also recognized that private student loans do not
come with any of the consumer protections that Federal loans do.
Private student loans are far riskier. Federal student loans have
fixed, affordable interest rates--3.4 percent. They also have a variety
of consumer protections. The Federal loans have forbearance in times of
economic hardship, and they offer manageable repayment options, such as
the income-based repayment plan.
Private student loans, on the other hand, often have high variable
interest rates--some have been quoted at 18 percent, the kind of rates
you are careful about when it comes to your credit--and they have hefty
origination fees and a lack of repayment options. Private lenders have
targeted low-income borrowers with some of the riskiest, highest cost
loans.
In many respects, private student loans are like credit cards--except
unlike credit card debt, private student loan debt can never be
discharged in bankruptcy. In 2005, Congress changed the bankruptcy
laws. I want to make a point here: I voted against it. Congress changed
the bankruptcy laws and included a provision making private student
loan debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy, except in the rarest of
circumstances. I have never found one that qualifies. That means
students are stuck with their loans for life.
While the volume of private student loans is down from its peak a few
years ago when it accounted for 26 percent of all student loans,
private lending is still aggressively promoted by the for-profit
college industry. The Project on Student Debt reports that 42 percent
of for-profit college students had private loans in 2008, up from 12
percent 5 years earlier. For-profit college students also graduate with
more debt than their peers who graduate from public or private and non-
private colleges. Many for-profit colleges employ a business model that
steers students into private student loans because of the 90/10 rule.
For the record, private for-profit schools can only receive 90
percent of their revenue from the Federal Government. They are the
closest darn thing to a Federal agency you have ever seen, except they
are making millions of dollars at the expense of the government and
unsuspecting students and their families. So to find the 10 percent of
nonfederal money, for-profit schools get the students to sign up to pay
for 10 percent of their education in private student loans, even if
they qualify for Federal loans, which are a much better deal.
The 90/10 rule that requires at least 10 percent of revenue from non-
Federal

[[Page S2255]]

student aid sources makes this an imperative for many for-profit
schools. As a result, many students are encouraged to take up private
loans when they are still eligible for Federal loans--even when the
lenders know the students are going to default--so schools can comply
with the 90/10 rule.
Kari Schaab contacted my office seeking relief from her burdensome
student debt. She received a bachelor of arts from the International
Academy of Design and Technology, a for-profit college. When she spoke
to an admissions representative, she was enrolled almost immediately.
Looking back, she says of the school: ``They take whoever is willing to
pay.''
She was assured she would be able to obtain a position in her field
that would help her pay off her student debt. Reflecting on her
experience, she said: ``I was young and didn't understand how much I
would owe or what the loans were. I trusted them.''
After completing her BA program, she decided that she would pursue a
master's in her field. What she found out shocked her. No schools would
accept her degree. It was a worthless diploma. With no job, no future
in her chosen field, and about $58,000 in debt, she decided to switch
careers entirely so that she would be able to pay off her student
loans.
She currently attends Oaktown Community College for nursing. She is
unable to get a mortgage because of her old student loan debt of
$58,000. Worse yet, her parents, trying to help her out, took out
$19,000 in loans to help pay her tuition. Her parents are currently in
chapter 13 bankruptcy, but that loan won't be discharged.
We need to begin now to address this looming student debt bomb
crisis. We need to protect students and prevent more students from
stepping into the same traps that have caught so many others.
Today, Senator Tom Harkin and I are introducing the Know Before You
Owe Private Student Loan Act of 2012. Here is what it says: It requires
the prospective borrower's school to confirm the student's enrollment
status, the cost of attendance, and the estimated Federal financial aid
assistance before the private student loan is approved. Often, students
haven't applied for Federal student aid before they are asked to apply
for private student loans, which are not nearly as generous or
flexible.
Requiring school certifications also gives the school the opportunity
to make students aware of Federal Government student aid options.
The bill requires schools to counsel the student about their options,
tell them how the private student loan will affect those options, and
what it will cost to repay the loans. Basics.
In addition, schools will be required to inform students about the
differences between Federal and private student loans. And the
differences are dramatic. This will give students time to weigh their
options, make a choice, and be informed.
When students such as Kari contact my office about their student
loans, they often don't know the difference between the two types of
loans. They said: ``It was just a student loan, Senator.'' Most go on
to say that if they had known, they would have thought more carefully
about a private student loan and the debt they were incurring.
For those students who do decide to take out a private student loan,
the bill requires lenders to provide the borrower with quarterly up-to-
date information about their balance and interest rate.
Finally, the bill requires lenders to report information to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about how many students are taking
out loans and at what rates. There is very little information about
private student loans currently available. More information will help
Congress and the CFPB effectively inform consumers about these private
student loans.
This legislation is supported by a huge coalition of education,
student, and consumer organizations. I want to thank Tom Harkin for his
work on this bill, especially all of the hard work he has put in on
these for-profit colleges.
Mr. President, it is finally dawning on a lot of Members of Congress
as they see programs such as ``Frontline'' talking about the for-profit
college industry, and as they meet these students who are going to
these worthless for-profit colleges--students who are just stacking up
debt for a worthless diploma--it is time for our Federal Government to
step up. How can we blame a student or their family if they are going
to a school where we, the Federal Government, are willing to offer Pell
grants and Federal loans? What is a student to think? Well, if it is
good enough for the Federal Government to loan money, it must be a good
school.
In fact, in many instances--in most instances--these for-profit
schools are not good schools. They are not offering a good education.
There are exceptions, but too many of them are just bad operations. We
subsidize them. Ninety to ninety-five percent of their revenue comes
straight from the Federal Government. When they talk about freezing
Federal employees' salaries, we ought to freeze the employees at these
for-profit schools. They are the closest thing to Federal employees we
have--95 percent Federal. We don't hear that from the other side of the
aisle. But it is a fact.
I will tell you this: This student loan debt bomb we are facing,
which I talked to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner about yesterday,
is going to explode on us, just as the subprime market loans did. More
and more students are going into default. They can't pay back these
student loans, and they are going to face life decisions that will
change their futures and the future of the American economy.
We now have 40 percent of students who are making payments on their
student loans--40 percent. Sixty percent are not. Some are still in
school, I will concede that point, but many of them just can't do it.
We pile this debt on, we give them preferred treatment in the
Bankruptcy Court so the lenders can't have the debt discharged, and we
sit there and watch as the lives of these young people deteriorate.
As one young lady testified at my hearing that she borrowed $37,625
from the Federal government, $40,925 in private loans. She went to the
Harrington College of Design in the suburbs of Chicago and ended up
with a worthless diploma--worthless. Five years later, her debt is no
longer $78,000; it is $98,000. It just keeps going up. She pays $830 a
month, and the private student loan debt is exploding right in front of
her. She can't pay it. She doesn't know what she is going to do. She
said she is going to have to give up the little home she and her
husband just bought. It looks pretty desperate for her, and her
desperate situation faces her at the age of 32--32.
How do we let this happen? Don't we have an obligation as a
government, as a people, to stop this exploitation of children and
their families? That is what is going on.
This bill I have put in today will require these schools--all
schools--to tell the students first that they have Federal loan
eligibility left. It is 3.4 percent, not 18 percent. There is loan
forgiveness if they become a nurse or a teacher. It is based on the
amount of income they have later in life what their repayment is going
to be. If they do get into trouble, they can have a delay in payment
without watching their loan just stack up. These are basic things we
build into the law to help students. Students and their families ought
to know that, and that is what this bill is about.
I commend this bill to my colleagues. I hope they will join Senator
Harkin and me. I want to offer this on the Senate floor, and I want
some colleagues to go home and face this student loan issue and listen
to the families they represent. We are hearing from our Web site, and I
invite students and families to come to my official Web site to tell
their stories. As we learn what it is all about, we see the need to
move on this, and move quickly.
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. 2280

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 ``Know Before You Owe Private
Student Loan Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

(a) In General.--Section 128(e) of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1638(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

[[Page S2256]]

``(3) Institutional certification required.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
before a creditor may issue any funds with respect to an
extension of credit described in this subsection, the
creditor shall obtain from the relevant institution of higher
education where such loan is to be used for a student, such
institution's certification of--
``(i) the enrollment status of the student;
``(ii) the student's cost of attendance at the institution
as determined by the institution under part F of title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
``(iii) the difference between--

``(I) such cost of attendance; and
``(II) the student's estimated financial assistance,
including such assistance received under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 and other financial assistance
known to the institution, as applicable.

``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a
creditor may issue funds with respect to an extension of
credit described in this subsection without obtaining from
the relevant institution of higher education such
institution's certification if such institution fails to
provide within 15 business days of the creditor's request for
such certification--
``(i) the requested certification; or
``(ii) notification that the institution has received the
request for certification and will need additional time to
comply with the certification request.
``(C) Loans disbursed without certification.--If a creditor
issues funds without obtaining a certification, as described
in subparagraph (B), such creditor shall report the issuance
of such funds in a manner determined by the Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), and (11) as
paragraphs (10), (11), and (12), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) Provision of information.--
``(A) Provision of information to students.--
``(i) Loan statement.--A creditor that issues any funds
with respect to an extension of credit described in this
subsection shall send loan statements, where such loan is to
be used for a student, to borrowers of such funds not less
than once every 3 months during the time that such student is
enrolled at an institution of higher education.
``(ii) Contents of loan statement.--Each statement
described in clause (i) shall--

``(I) report the borrower's total remaining debt to the
creditor, including accrued but unpaid interest and
capitalized interest;
``(II) report any debt increases since the last statement;
and
``(III) list the current interest rate for each loan.

``(B) Notification of loans disbursed without
certification.--On or before the date a creditor issues any
funds with respect to an extension of credit described in
this subsection, the creditor shall notify the relevant
institution of higher education, in writing, of the amount of
the extension of credit and the student on whose behalf
credit is extended. The form of such written notification
shall be subject to the regulations of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
``(C) Annual report.--A creditor that issues funds with
respect to an extension of credit described in this
subsection shall prepare and submit an annual report to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau containing the required
information about private student loans to be determined by
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in consultation
with the Secretary of Education.''.
(b) Definition of Private Education Loan.--Section
140(a)(7)(A) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1650(a)(7)(A)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii);
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(3) by adding after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) is not made, insured, or guaranteed under title VII
or title VIII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292
et seq. and 296 et seq.); and''.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 365 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau shall issue regulations in final form to implement
paragraphs (3) and (9) of section 128(e) of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638(e)), as amended by subsection
(a). Such regulations shall become effective not later than 6
months after their date of issuance.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

(a) Amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965.--Section
487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1094(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (28) and inserting
the following:
``(28)(A) The institution shall--
``(i) upon the request of a private educational lender,
acting in connection with an application initiated by a
borrower for a private education loan in accordance with
section 128(e)(3) of the Truth in Lending Act, provide
certification to such private educational lender--

``(I) that the student who initiated the application for
the private education loan, or on whose behalf the
application was initiated, is enrolled or is scheduled to
enroll at the institution;
``(II) of such student's cost of attendance at the
institution as determined under part F of this title; and
``(III) of the difference between--

``(aa) the cost of attendance at the institution; and
``(bb) the student's estimated financial assistance
received under this title and other assistance known to the
institution, as applicable; and
``(ii) provide the certification described in clause (i),
or notify the creditor that the institution has received the
request for certification and will need additional time to
comply with the certification request--

``(I) within 15 business days of receipt of such
certification request; and
``(II) only after the institution has completed the
activities described in subparagraph (B).

``(B) The institution shall, upon receipt of a
certification request described in subparagraph (A)(i), and
prior to providing such certification--
``(i) determine whether the student who initiated the
application for the private education loan, or on whose
behalf the application was initiated, has applied for and
exhausted the Federal financial assistance available to such
student under this title and inform the student accordingly;
and
``(ii) provide the borrower whose loan application has
prompted the certification request by a private education
lender, as described in subparagraph (A)(i), with the
following information and disclosures:

``(I) The availability of, and the borrower's potential
eligibility for, Federal financial assistance under this
title, including disclosing the terms, conditions, interest
rates, and repayment options and programs of Federal student
loans.
``(II) The borrower's ability to select a private
educational lender of the borrower's choice.
``(III) The impact of a proposed private education loan on
the borrower's potential eligibility for other financial
assistance, including Federal financial assistance under this
title.
``(IV) The borrower's right to accept or reject a private
education loan within the 30-day period following a private
educational lender's approval of a borrower's application and
about a borrower's 3-day right to cancel period.

``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the terms `private
educational lender' and `private education loan' have the
meanings given such terms in section 140 of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1650).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the effective date of the regulations
described in section 2(c).

SEC. 4. REPORT.

Not later than 24 months after the issuance of regulations
under section 2(c), the Director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and the Secretary of Education shall
jointly submit to Congress a report on the compliance of
institutions of higher education and private educational
lenders with section 128(e)(3) of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1638(e)), as amended by section 2, and section
487(a)(28) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1094(a)), as amended by section 3. Such report shall include
information about the degree to which specific institutions
utilize certifications in effectively encouraging the
exhaustion of Federal student loan eligibility and lowering
student private education loan debt.
______

By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 2282. A bill to extend the authorization of appropriations to
carry out approved wetlands conservation projects under the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act through fiscal year 2017; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, NAWCA.
This bill has overwhelming bipartisan support, and I am pleased to have
Senators Boxer, Vitter, Landrieu, Cochran, Johnson, and Klobuchar as
original cosponsors.
In fact, this is a conservation program that has long enjoyed support
on both sides of the aisle. Back in 2006, I worked with my colleagues
to pass the last reauthorization of this program by unanimous consent
and was pleased that President Bush signed the bill into law.
This bill also has the support of many conservation and hunting
groups including: Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation
Alliance, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl,
Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, Mule Deer Foundation,
National Assembly of

[[Page S2257]]

Sportsmen's Caucuses, National Rifle Association, National Trappers
Association, National Wild Turkey Foundation, North American Bear
Foundation, North American Grouse Partnership, Orion-The Hunters'
Institute, Pheasants Forever, Pope and Young Club, Public Lands
Foundation, Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club
International, Texas Wildlife Association, The Conservation Fund,
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Whitetails Unlimited,
Wildlife Forever, and Wildlife Management Institute
NAWCA was first enacted in 1989 and incentivizes non-federal
contributions to maintain and restore wetland habitat throughout North
America. Since its inception, each Federal dollar has been matched, on
average, by $3.20 in state and private funds. Not only do these funds
help to support waterfowl populations that were once nearing all time
lows, these voluntary projects also support nearly 7,500 new jobs
annually.
The success of this program lies in the fact that these projects are
not top down regulations coming from the Federal Government. These
projects involve multiple partners from private organizations and the
Federal Government who work together voluntarily to protect and restore
millions of acres of wetlands.
In my home State of Oklahoma, NAWCA currently has 12 projects either
completed or underway. These projects have conserved 26,869 acres of
wildlife habitat and leveraged $11.3 million in partner contributions.
These projects benefit outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, as well
as boosting local economies.
NAWCA is a great example of how environmental conservation should be
achieved. This program should put to rest the notion that voluntary
efforts aren't successful. I would argue that these voluntary programs
have been more successful and more cost effective than other mandatory
Federal regulations.
I look forward to this reauthorization moving quickly through the
Senate. Thank you.

____________________