[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5734-S5737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 3459. A bill to amend the Department of Energy High-End Computing 
Revitalization Act of 2004 to improve the high-end computing research 
and development program of the Department of Energy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Department 
of Energy High-End Computing Improvement Act of 2012, along with my co-
sponsors, Senators Alexander and Durbin. This bipartisan bill addresses 
the need for ongoing high performance computing and the establishment 
of an exascale program within the Department of Energy, DOE.
  America's leadership in high performance computing, HPC, is essential 
to a vast range of national priorities in science, energy, environment, 
health, and national security. For decades the U.S. was the leader in 
HPC through collaborative efforts led by the DOE between national 
laboratories, academia, and industry. Investments in HPC have 
facilitated extraordinary scientific and technological advances that 
have enabled a wide range of simulation and analysis saving time, 
money, energy and fuel, which has strengthened the U.S. economy and 
contributed to national security.
  U.S. leadership in HPC has recently been challenged through 
significant governmental investment in HPC programs in Japan, China, 
South Korea, Russia, and the European Union, and the race to exascale 
computing is on. Exascale computers will be able to perform 10 to the 
18th power floating point operations per second making them 1000 times 
more powerful than the most advanced computers today. These new 
computers will require the development of new software and computer 
architectures with improved power consumption, memory, and reliability.
  This bipartisan bill updates the Department of Energy High-End 
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to preserve DOE HPC and to 
distinguish the exascale initiative from other high-end computing 
efforts. Based on input from the DOE, appropriate funding levels are 
established through this bill to support the exascale initiative 
through fiscal year 2015. This bill will ensure that the U.S. remains 
competitive in the race to exascale and as with previous generations of 
HPC systems, the resulting technological advances will further support 
Federal priorities like research and national security and will be 
integrated into electronics industries strengthening high-tech 
competitiveness and driving economic growth.
  I would like to conclude by taking a moment to acknowledge the 
exceptional efforts of a few staff members who have worked diligently 
to help craft this important piece of legislation. Jonathan Epstein, a 
former staff member on my Energy and Natural Resources Committee and 
current staff member on the Armed Services Committee and Jennifer 
Nekuda Malik, a AAAS Science Policy Fellow on my Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee worked with Neena Imam, a Legislative Fellow on 
Senator Alexander's staff and Tom Craig, a staff member on the 
Appropriations Committee, to update the DOE's high-end computing 
program to account for changes since the Department of Energy High-End 
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 and establish the exascale 
computing program. I appreciate the efforts of these staff members and 
I thank them for their work.
  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. 3459

       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 ``Department of Energy High-
     End Computing Improvement Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. RENAMING OF ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Department of Energy 
     High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 5501 
     note; Public Law 108-423) is amended by striking ``Department 
     of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004'' and 
     inserting ``Department of Energy High-End Computing Act of 
     2012''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 976(a)(1) of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16316(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``Department of Energy High-End Computing 
     Revitalization Act of 2004'' and inserting ``Department of 
     Energy High-End Computing Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing 
     Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5541) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the 
     Department of Energy.
       ``(2) Exascale computing.--The term `exascale computing' 
     means computing through the use of a computing machine that 
     performs near or above 10 to the 18th power floating point 
     operations per second.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     Science of the Department of Energy''.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HIGH-END COMPUTING RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 3 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing 
     Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5542) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``program'' and 
     inserting ``coordinated program across the Department'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``, which may'' and 
     all that follows through ``architectures''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Exascale Computing Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a research 
     program (referred to in this subsection as the `program') to 
     develop 1 or more exascale computing machines to promote the 
     missions of the Department.
       ``(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate the development of 1 or more 
     exascale computing machines across all applicable agencies of 
     the Department.
       ``(3) Codesign.--The Secretary shall carry out the program 
     through an integration of application, computer science, and 
     computer hardware architecture using public-private 
     partnerships to ensure that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, 1 or more exascale computing machines are 
     capable of solving Department target applications and 
     scientific problems.
       ``(4) Merit review.--The development of 1 or more exascale 
     computing machines shall be conducted through a merit review 
     process.
       ``(5) Annual reports.--At the time of the budget submission 
     of the Department for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report that describes funding for the 
     exascale computing program as a whole by functional element 
     of the Department and critical milestones.''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 4 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing 
     Act of 2012 (15 U.S.C. 5543) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``section 
     3(d)''; and

[[Page S5735]]

       (2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
       ``(2) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
       ``(3) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Rubio):
  S. 3460. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for startup businesses to use a portion of the research and development 
credit to offset payroll taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, to fuel American economic growth and job 
creation, we have to make sure our tax policy is as smart as the 
innovators who power our economy.
  American ingenuity has always been at the core of our economic 
success. Behind nearly every game-changing innovation, from the light 
bulb to the search engine, has been critical research and development 
that transforms an idea into a market-ready product. The challenges of 
the global economy may be new, but the solution is the same--supporting 
and sustaining American innovators.
  That is why I joined with my friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, to draft legislation that gives innovative 
startup companies the opportunity to take advantage of the successful 
research and development tax credit, which would support their efforts 
to invest in innovation and create jobs.
  Senator Enzi and I are proud to be joined by Senator Schumer of New 
York and Senator Rubio of Florida in introducing the Startup Innovation 
Credit Act of 2012, which allows qualifying companies to claim the R&D 
tax credit against their employment taxes instead of their income 
taxes, thereby opening the credit to new companies who don't yet have 
an income tax liability. We are also grateful to our colleagues in the 
House, who are working to introduce a bipartisan companion bill this 
week.
  Over the past three decades, the research and development tax credit 
has helped tens of thousands of successful American companies create 
jobs by incentivizing investment in innovation. But with America's 
global manufacturing competitiveness at stake, it is time Congress 
shows the same type of support for entrepreneurs and young companies.
  Small and startup businesses are driving our Nation's economic 
recovery and creating jobs by taking risks to turn their ideas into 
marketable products. Over the past few decades, firms that were younger 
than 5 years old were responsible for the overwhelming majority of new 
jobs in this country.
  The tax code is a powerful tool in the government's toolbox, but tax 
credits can't help emerging companies that don't yet have tax 
liabilities. That takes the R&D tax credit off the table for countless 
promising startups and small businesses.
  Over the last two years, I have talked with dozens of business 
leaders and experts in tax policy to refine an idea to create a new 
small business innovation credit that would help those young companies. 
My commitment to this concept has only strengthened since I introduced 
a version of it in my very first bill as a Senator, the Job Creation 
Through Innovation Act. This work continued, along with Senator Rubio, 
in the subsequent AGREE Act and Startup Act 2.0.
  The reason I am so doggedly pursuing this idea is because it is 
critical for young, innovative companies in my home state of Delaware. 
Take, for example, DeNovix, a small company based in Wilmington. With 
just six employees, they design, manufacture and sell laboratory 
equipment that helps scientists innovate and achieve results. As a 
brand-new company, all of DeNovix' products are in the research and 
development phase. So at this point, they can't take advantage of the 
R&D tax credit. A new, innovative company, shut out of support they 
need at the time they need it most. That seems counterproductive for 
our economy. So let us fix it. Under the Startup Innovation Credit Act 
of 2012, DeNovix and companies like them across Delaware and across the 
country could grow and create jobs with the help of the R&D tax credit.
  We can't let tough economic times slow down the power of American 
ingenuity, especially when history has taught us that now is exactly 
the time we need to be investing in our innovators. More than half of 
our Fortune 500 companies were launched during a recession or bear 
market, so a small business founded this year could become the next 
General Electric or DuPont if it gets the support it needs.
  America's researchers, business leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs 
are already working to help create jobs and ensure American 
competitiveness in the global economy. We just have to support and 
sustain their hard work, and we cannot take the rest of the year off 
just because there is an election coming up. Even in this difficult, 
partisan atmosphere, we have to find ways to work together and get 
things done.
  Innovation will drive American economic competitiveness for 
generations to come, and our job is to help our innovators and 
entrepreneurs do their jobs. I urge my colleagues to join Senators 
Enzi, Schumer, Rubio and I in strong support of the Startup Innovation 
Credit Act of 2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Begich):
  S. 3461. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to 
provide for a National Pediatric Research Network, including with 
respect to pediatric rare diseases or conditions; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, over the last few years, our 
country has grappled with rising health care costs.
  While we are making strides, there is one area of health care that is 
lagging behind: pediatric research.
  Children comprise 20 percept of the U.S. population, but only about 5 
percent of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, extramural research 
is dedicated to pediatric research.
  If this rate of investment is not expanded, discoveries of new 
treatments and therapies for some of the most devastating childhood 
diseases and conditions will be hindered, and the next generation of 
researchers will be discouraged from entering into the field of 
pediatrics.
  That is why I have introduced the National Pediatric Research Network 
Act. This act seeks to reverse this trend by strengthening and 
expanding NIH's investments into pediatric research.
  This expanded investment will help accelerate new discoveries and 
directly affect the health and well-being of children throughout our 
Nation.
  My home State of Ohio is home to world-class researchers at topnotch 
research hospitals and universities.
  We must give these institutions, including Cincinnati Children's, 
Rainbow Babies, Children's Hospital, and Nationwide Children's 
Hospitals, the resources to partner with other leading researchers 
across the country.
  This legislation creates such an opportunity.
  The centerpiece of the legislation will be the authorization of up to 
20 National Pediatric Research Consortia.
  They are modeled after the exemplary National Cancer Institute, NCI, 
Centers to help finance efficient and effective, inter-institutional 
pediatric research.
  While NIH is working to advance translational research through 
Clinical & Translational Science Awards, those centers are far-reaching 
and focused primarily on adult diseases and clinical research. In 
contrast, these pediatric centers would be solely dedicated toward 
pediatric research.
  Unlike existing NIH initiatives in which only the largest research 
institutions receive funds, the legislation envisions that each center 
will operate in a ``hub and spoke'' framework with one central academic 
center coordinating research and/or clinical work at numerous auxiliary 
sites. Encouraging collaboration can help ensure efficiency.
  Furthermore, this legislation will encourage research in pediatric 
rare diseases.
  While each rare disease or disorder affects a small patient 
population, it is important to note that 7,000 rare diseases--such as 
epidermolysis bullosa, sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, 
Down syndrome, Duchene's muscular dystrophy, and many childhood 
cancers--affect a combined 30 million Americans and their families.

[[Page S5736]]

  What is even more devastating is the fact that children with rare 
genetic diseases account for more than half of the rare disease 
population in the United States.
  As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient 
populations face unique challenges.
  It is my hope the National Pediatric Research Network Act will 
increase our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and 
therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation's 
children.
  I thank Senators Wicker, Whitehouse, Kerry, Blumenthal, and Begich 
for joining me as original cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 3462. A bill to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust 
whistleblowers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley 
and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This 
legislation will provide important protections to employees who come 
forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal 
antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a 
long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad 
we can continue this partnership today.
  Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and 
law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step 
forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. 
Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about 
criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful 
protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them 
vulnerable to reprisals.
  The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report 
and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, 
based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for 
anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled 
on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley 
Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no 
economic incentive to bring forth false claims.
  I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, 
which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's 
legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan 
support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I 
urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3462

       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 ``Criminal Antitrust Anti-
     Retaliation Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ACPERA.

       The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 
     of 2004 (Public Law 108-237; 15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by 
     adding after section 215 the following:

     ``SEC. 216. ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS.

       ``(a) Whistleblower Protections for Employees, Contractors, 
     Subcontractors, and Agents.--
       ``(1) In general.--No person, or any officer, employee, 
     contractor, subcontractor or agent of such person, may 
     discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other 
     manner discriminate against a whistleblower in the terms and 
     conditions of employment because--
       ``(A) the whistleblower provided or caused to be provided 
     to the person or the Federal Government information relating 
     to--
       ``(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the 
     whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of the 
     antitrust laws; or
       ``(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the 
     whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of 
     another criminal law committed in conjunction with a 
     potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 
     with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a 
     potential violation of the antitrust laws; or
       ``(B) the whistleblower filed, caused to be filed, 
     testified, participated in, or otherwise assisted an 
     investigation or a proceeding filed or about to be filed 
     (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to--
       ``(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the 
     whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of the 
     antitrust laws; or
       ``(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the 
     whistleblower reasonably believes to be a violation of 
     another criminal law committed in conjunction with a 
     potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 
     with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a 
     potential violation of the antitrust laws.
       ``(2) Limitation on protections.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any whistleblower if--
       ``(A) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation 
     or attempted violation of the antitrust laws;
       ``(B) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation 
     or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction 
     with a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust 
     laws; or
       ``(C) the whistleblower planned and initiated an 
     obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by 
     the Department of Justice of a violation of the antitrust 
     laws.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In the section:
       ``(A) Person.--The term `person' has the same meaning as in 
     subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 12(a)).
       ``(B) Antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust laws' means 
     section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 3) or similar 
     State law.
       ``(C) Whistleblower.--The term `whistleblower' means an 
     employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent protected from 
     discrimination under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Enforcement Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--A whistleblower who alleges discharge or 
     other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection 
     (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
       ``(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       ``(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision 
     within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is 
     no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the 
     claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo 
     review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--A complaint filed with the Secretary of 
     Labor under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the 
     rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b)of title 
     49, United States Code.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 
     42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to 
     the person named in the complaint and to the employer.
       ``(C) Burdens of proof.--A complaint filed with the 
     Secretary of Labor under paragraph (1) shall be governed by 
     the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       ``(D) Statute of limitations.--A complaint under paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall be filed with the Secretary of Labor not later 
     than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs.
       ``(E) Civil actions to enforce.--If a person fails to 
     comply with an order or preliminary order issued by the 
     Secretary of Labor pursuant to the procedures in section 
     42121(b), the Secretary of Labor or the person on whose 
     behalf the order was issued may bring a civil action to 
     enforce the order in the district court of the United States 
     for the judicial district in which the violation occurred.
       ``(c) Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--A whistleblower prevailing in any action 
     under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief 
     necessary to make the whistleblower whole.
       ``(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     whistleblower would have had, but for the discrimination;
       ``(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
       ``(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees.
       ``(d) Rights Retained by Whistleblowers.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, 
     or remedies of any whistleblower under any Federal or State 
     law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 
        Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Brown 
        of Ohio):
  S. 3463. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
reduce the incidence of diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleagues, Senator Franken, Senator Lugar, Senator Collins, Senator 
Shaheen, Senator Wyden, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown of Ohio, 
to introduce an important piece of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare 
Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our legislation makes a wise 
investment in seniors' health by extending the proven

[[Page S5737]]

success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly 
26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend 
doesn't stop, over half of the adult population will either have Type 2 
diabetes or its precursor, ``prediabetes,'' by 2020.
  Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes 
rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11 
percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for 
Disease Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000 
people with Medicare in West Virginia may be at risk of developing this 
serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in 
three children born in West Virginia after the year 2000 will develop 
diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk 
developing terrible complications down the road, including heart 
disease, stroke, blindness, and amputations.
  Diabetes is also one of the main cost drivers in our health care 
system. The direct economic burden of diabetes was $116 billion for 
medical expenses and indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to 
disability, work loss, or premature death in 2007. The costs associated 
with this preventable disease for Medicare beneficiaries are expected 
to grow to $2 trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period.
  We simply cannot stand idly by in the face of such overwhelming 
statistics--and fortunately, there is a way to prevent Type 2 diabetes. 
The National Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, is an innovative 
approach that has demonstrated its effects in preventing the onset of 
Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP is a proven, community-based intervention 
that focuses on changing lifestyle behaviors of prediabetic overweight 
or obese adults through activities that improve dietary choices and 
increase physical activity in a group setting. In a large-scale 
clinical trial that has been replicated in community settings, NDPP 
successfully reduced the onset of diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 
percent in adults over 60.
  Because of the impressive success of the National Diabetes Prevention 
Program, I believe our seniors should have access to its benefits. The 
Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help seniors prevent Type 
2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes 
Prevention Program through community settings like the YMCA, local 
health departments, or even the local church, reaching people with 
Medicare wherever they live. In the past, physicians have had few tools 
for their patients who are found to be at risk of diabetes. Under this 
bill, if a senior is found at risk for diabetes, for example, through 
their annual wellness visit, their doctor will be able to refer them to 
an NDPP program in their area.
  Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover 
this program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay 
for this innovative initiative, and it is my hope that more states will 
do so. By 2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 million people with 
diabetes and about 9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and 
states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with diabetes 
or pre-diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention program presents an 
opportunity for States to reduce the incidence of diabetes among 
individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially 
strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid 
program under health reform.
  The coverage of proven solutions under Medicare is nothing new. Yet, 
rather than providing a traditional drug or procedure, NDPP allows at-
risk individuals to change their lifestyles through a community 
intervention. Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming 
and escalating rates of diabetes. This public health solution has 
demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to prevent 
diabetes, while reducing health care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and 
cost-effective intervention that costs less than $500 per person to 
deliver, compared to the estimated $15,000 per year spent on each 
Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the Urban Institute, 
implementing the NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next 
10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going to the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  Better yet, the National Diabetes Prevention Program is a job 
creator, bringing diabetes trainers to more communities nationwide to 
provide the program. West Virginia has already received funding from 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Community 
Transformation Grant that will allow the State to train at least 100 
community health workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention 
Program in the State over the next 5 years.
  The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act has been endorsed by the 
American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American 
Public Health Association, National Association of Chronic Disease 
Directors, National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 
Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for America's 
Health, the YMCA of the USA, and State YMCA affiliates in over 45 
States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and its 
potentially severe complications, today is the right time for Medicare 
to extend the proven National Diabetes Prevention Program as a covered 
benefit to seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota:
  S. 3464. A bill to amend the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to 
facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply System, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today I introduced 
legislation to facilitate completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water 
System. The Mni Wiconi Project provides quality drinking water to three 
Indian Reservations and a non-tribal rural water system in western 
South Dakota that have historically faced insufficient and, in too many 
cases, unsafe drinking water.
  I have been involved with this project for the entirety of my 25 year 
congressional career, including sponsoring authorizing legislation that 
was ultimately enacted in 1988. In authorizing the project, Congress 
found that the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that 
adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, 
environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the Pine Ridge 
Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, and Lower Brule Indian 
Reservation. With treated drinking water from the Missouri River now 
reaching most of the three reservations, as well as the 7 county area 
of the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System, we are very close to 
completing this critically important project.
  Unfortunately, appropriations have failed to keep pace with projected 
timelines, and additional costs have cut into construction funding. 
Accordingly, the project requires an increase in the cost ceiling and 
extension of its authorization in order to be completed and serve the 
design population. Without an adjustment to the cost ceiling, some 
portions of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System and Rosebud 
Sioux Rural Water System will remain incomplete. The legislation I have 
introduced today addresses this shortfall and other important aspects 
of the project. The legislation also directs other Federal agencies 
that support rural water development to assist the Bureau of 
Reclamation in improving and repairing existing community water systems 
that are important components of the project.
  Our Federal responsibility to address the tremendous need for 
adequate and safe drinking water supplies on the Pine Ridge, Rosebud 
and Lower Brule Indian Reservations remains as important today as it 
was 25 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
advance this modest but important legislation.

                          ____________________