[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.

       ``(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.
       ``(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

[[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--

       ``(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 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.

                          ____________________