Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S215-S223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Burr,
and Mr. Kirk):
S. 80. A bill to amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 to provide for Debbie Smith grants for auditing sexual assault
evidence backlogs and to establish a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence
Reporting System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. 80

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 ``Sexual Assault Forensic
Evidence Reporting Act of 2013'' or the ``SAFER Act of
2013''.

SEC. 2. DEBBIE SMITH GRANTS FOR AUDITING SEXUAL ASSAULT
EVIDENCE BACKLOGS.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(7) To conduct an audit consistent with subsection (n) of
the samples of sexual assault evidence that are in the
possession of the State or unit of local government and are
awaiting testing.
``(8) To ensure that the collection and processing of DNA
evidence by law enforcement agencies from crimes, including
sexual assault and other violent crimes against persons, is
carried out in an appropriate and timely manner and in
accordance with the protocols and practices developed under
subsection (o)(1).'';
(2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Allocation of grant awards for audits.--For each of
fiscal years 2014 through 2017, not less than 5 percent, but
not more than 7 percent, of the grant amounts distributed
under paragraph (1) shall, if sufficient applications to
justify such amounts are received by the Attorney General, be
awarded for purposes described in subsection (a)(7), provided
that none of the funds required to be distributed under this
paragraph shall decrease or otherwise limit the availability
of funds required to be awarded to States or units of local
government under paragraph (3).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(n) Use of Funds for Auditing Sexual Assault Evidence
Backlogs.--
``(1) Eligibility.--The Attorney General may award a grant
under this section to a State or unit of local government for
the purpose described in subsection (a)(7) only if the State
or unit of local government--
``(A) submits a plan for performing the audit of samples
described in such subsection; and
``(B) includes in such plan a good-faith estimate of the
number of such samples.
``(2) Grant conditions.--A State or unit of local
government receiving a grant for the purpose described in
subsection (a)(7)--
``(A) may not enter into any contract or agreement with any
non-governmental vendor laboratory to conduct an audit
described in subsection (a)(7); and
``(B) shall--
``(i) not later than 1 year after receiving the grant,
complete the audit referred to in paragraph (1)(A) in
accordance with the plan submitted under such paragraph;
``(ii) not later than 60 days after receiving possession of
a sample of sexual assault evidence that was not in the
possession of the State or unit of local government at the
time of the initiation of an audit under paragraph (1)(A),
subject to paragraph (4)(F), include in any required reports
under clause (v), the information listed under paragraph
(4)(B);
``(iii) for each sample of sexual assault evidence that is
identified as awaiting testing as part of the audit referred
to in paragraph (1)(A)--

``(I) assign a unique numeric or alphanumeric identifier to
each sample of sexual assault evidence that is in the
possession of the State or unit of local government and is
awaiting testing; and
``(II) identify the date or dates after which the State or
unit of local government would be barred by any applicable
statutes of limitations from prosecuting a perpetrator of the
sexual assault to which the sample relates;

``(iv) provide that--

``(I) the chief law enforcement officer of the State or
unit of local government, respectively, is the individual
responsible for the compliance of the State or unit of local
government, respectively, with the reporting requirements
described in clause (v); or
``(II) the designee of such officer may fulfill the
responsibility described in subclause (I) so long as such
designee is an employee of the State or unit of local
government, respectively, and is not an employee of any
governmental laboratory or non-governmental vendor
laboratory; and

``(v) comply with all grantee reporting requirements
described in paragraph (4).
``(3) Extension of initial deadline.--The Attorney General
may grant an extension of the deadline under paragraph
(2)(B)(i) to a State or unit of local government that
demonstrates that more time is required for compliance with
such paragraph.
``(4) Sexual assault forensic evidence reports.--
``(A) In general.--For not less than 12 months after the
completion of an initial count of sexual assault evidence
that is awaiting testing during an audit referred to in
paragraph (1)(A), a State or unit of local government that
receives a grant award under subsection (a)(7) shall, not
less than every 60 days, submit a report to the Department of
Justice, on a form prescribed by the Attorney General, which
shall contain the

[[Page S216]]

information required under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Contents of reports.--A report under this paragraph
shall contain the following information--
``(i) the name of the State or unit of local government
filing the report;
``(ii) the period of dates covered by the report;
``(iii) the cumulative total number of samples of sexual
assault evidence that, at the end of the reporting period--

``(I) are in the possession of the State or unit of local
government at the reporting period;
``(II) are awaiting testing; and
``(III) the State or unit of local government has
determined should undergo DNA or other appropriate forensic
analyses;

``(iv) the cumulative total number of samples of sexual
assault evidence in the possession of the State or unit of
local government that, at the end of the reporting period,
the State or unit of local government has determined should
not undergo DNA or other appropriate forensic analyses,
provided that the reporting form shall allow for the State or
unit of local government, at its sole discretion, to explain
the reasoning for this determination in some or all cases;
``(v) the cumulative total number of samples of sexual
assault evidence in a total under clause (iii) that have been
submitted to a laboratory for DNA or other appropriate
forensic analyses;
``(vi) the cumulative total number of samples of sexual
assault evidence identified by an audit referred to in
paragraph (1)(A) or under paragraph (2)(B)(ii) for which DNA
or other appropriate forensic analysis has been completed at
the end of the reporting period;
``(vii) the total number of samples of sexual assault
evidence identified by the State or unit of local government
under paragraph (2)(B)(ii), since the previous reporting
period; and
``(viii) the cumulative total number of samples of sexual
assault evidence described under clause (iii) for which the
State or unit of local government will be barred within 12
months by any applicable statute of limitations from
prosecuting a perpetrator of the sexual assault to which the
sample relates.
``(C) Publication of reports.--Not later than 7 days after
the submission of a report under this paragraph by a State or
unit of local government, the Attorney General shall, subject
to subparagraph (D), publish and disseminate a facsimile of
the full contents of such report on an appropriate internet
website.
``(D) Personally identifiable information.--The Attorney
General shall ensure that any information published and
disseminated as part of a report under this paragraph, which
reports information under this subsection, does not include
personally identifiable information or details about a sexual
assault that might lead to the identification of the
individuals involved.
``(E) Optional reporting.--The Attorney General shall--
``(i) at the discretion of a State or unit of local
government required to file a report under subparagraph (A),
allow such State or unit of local government, at their sole
discretion, to submit such reports on a more frequent basis;
and
``(ii) make available to all States and units of local
government the reporting form created pursuant to
subparagraph (A), whether or not they are required to submit
such reports, and allow such States or units of local
government, at their sole discretion, to submit such reports
for publication.
``(F) Samples exempt from reporting requirement.--The
reporting requirements described in paragraph (2) shall not
apply to a sample of sexual assault evidence that--
``(i) is not considered criminal evidence (such as a sample
collected anonymously from a victim who is unwilling to make
a criminal complaint); or
``(ii) relates to a sexual assault for which the
prosecution of each perpetrator is barred by a statute of
limitations.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Awaiting testing.--The term `awaiting testing' means,
with respect to a sample of sexual assault evidence, that--
``(i) the sample has been collected and is in the
possession of a State or unit of local government;
``(ii) DNA and other appropriate forensic analyses have not
been performed on such sample; and
``(iii) the sample is related to a criminal case or
investigation in which final disposition has not yet been
reached.
``(B) Final disposition.--The term `final disposition'
means, with respect to a criminal case or investigation to
which a sample of sexual assault evidence relates--
``(i) the conviction or acquittal of all suspected
perpetrators of the crime involved;
``(ii) a determination by the State or unit of local
government in possession of the sample that the case is
unfounded; or
``(iii) a declaration by the victim of the crime involved
that the act constituting the basis of the crime was not
committed.
``(C) Possession.--
``(i) In general.--The term `possession', used with respect
to possession of a sample of sexual assault evidence by a
State or unit of local government, includes possession by an
individual who is acting as an agent of the State or unit of
local government for the collection of the sample.
``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i) shall
be construed to create or amend any Federal rights or
privileges for non-governmental vendor laboratories described
in regulations promulgated under section 210303 of the DNA
Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14131).
``(o) Establishment of Protocols, Technical Assistance, and
Definitions.--
``(1) Protocols and practices.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of the SAFER Act of 2013, the
Director, in consultation with Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies and government laboratories, shall
develop and publish a description of protocols and practices
the Director considers appropriate for the accurate, timely,
and effective collection and processing of DNA evidence,
including protocols and practices specific to sexual assault
cases, which shall address appropriate steps in the
investigation of cases that might involve DNA evidence,
including--
``(A) how to determine--
``(i) which evidence is to be collected by law enforcement
personnel and forwarded for testing;
``(ii) the preferred order in which evidence from the same
case is to be tested; and
``(iii) what information to take into account when
establishing the order in which evidence from different cases
is to be tested;
``(B) the establishment of a reasonable period of time in
which evidence is to be forwarded by emergency response
providers, law enforcement personnel, and prosecutors to a
laboratory for testing;
``(C) the establishment of reasonable periods of time in
which each stage of analytical laboratory testing is to be
completed;
``(D) systems to encourage communication within a State or
unit of local government among emergency response providers,
law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, courts, defense
counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and crime victims
regarding the status of crime scene evidence to be tested;
and
``(E) standards for conducting the audit of the backlog for
DNA case work in sexual assault cases required under
subsection (n).
``(2) Technical assistance and training.--The Director
shall make available technical assistance and training to
support States and units of local government in adopting and
implementing the protocols and practices developed under
paragraph (1) on and after the date on which the protocols
and practices are published.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms `awaiting
testing' and `possession' have the meanings given those terms
in subsection (n).''.

SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year
for which a grant is made for the purpose described in
section 2(a)(7) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000, as amended by section 2, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report that--
(1) lists the States and units of local government that
have been awarded such grants and the amount of the grant
received by each such State or unit of local government;
(2) states the number of extensions granted by the Attorney
General under section 2(n)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000, as added by section 2; and
(3) summarizes the processing status of the samples of
sexual assault evidence identified in Sexual Assault Forensic
Evidence Reports established under section 2(n)(4) of the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, including the
number of samples that have not been tested.

SEC. 4. REDUCING THE RAPE KIT BACKLOG.

Section 2(c)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(c)(3)) is amended--
(a) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2014'' and
inserting ``2018''; and
(b) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) For each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018, not less
than 75 percent of the total grant amounts shall be awarded
for a combination of purposes under paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) of subsection (a).''.

SEC. 5. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

All grants awarded by the Department of Justice that are
authorized under the SAFER Act of 2013 shall be subject to
the following:
(1) Audit requirement.--Beginning in fiscal year 2013, and
each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of
grants under this Act to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of
funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the
appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
(2) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds under
this Act that is found to have an unresolved audit finding
shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under this Act
during the 2 fiscal years beginning after the 12-month period
described in paragraph (5).
(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this Act, the
Attorney General shall give priority to eligible entities
that, during the 3 fiscal years before submitting an
application for a grant under this Act, did not have an
unresolved audit finding showing a violation in the terms or
conditions of a Department of Justice grant program.
(4) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded grant funds
under this Act during the 2-fiscal-year period in which the
entity is barred from receiving grants under paragraph (2),
the Attorney General shall--
(A) deposit an amount equal to the grant funds that were
improperly awarded to the

[[Page S217]]

grantee into the General Fund of the Treasury; and
(B) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund
from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant
funds.
(5) Defined term.--In this section, the term ``unresolved
audit finding'' means an audit report finding in the final
audit report of the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice that the grantee has utilized grant funds for an
unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that
is not closed or resolved within a 12-month period beginning
on the date when the final audit report is issued.
(6) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
(A) Definition.--For purposes of this section and the grant
programs described in this Act, the term `` `nonprofit
organization' '' means an organization that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General shall not award a
grant under any grant program described in this Act to a
nonprofit organization that holds money in offshore accounts
for the purpose of avoiding paying the tax described in
section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a grant under a grant program described in this Act
and uses the procedures prescribed in regulations to create a
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for the compensation
of its officers, directors, trustees and key employees, shall
disclose to the Attorney General, in the application for the
grant, the process for determining such compensation,
including the independent persons involved in reviewing and
approving such compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subsection available for
public inspection.
(7) Administrative expenses.--Unless otherwise explicitly
provided in authorizing legislation, not more than 7.5
percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
this Act may be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses of the Department of Justice.
(8) Conference expenditures.--
(A) Limitation.--No amounts authorized to be appropriated
to the Department of Justice under this Act may be used by
the Attorney General or by any individual or organization
awarded discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement
under this Act, to host or support any expenditure for
conferences that uses more than $20,000 in Department funds,
unless the Deputy Attorney General or the appropriate
Assistant Attorney General, Director, or principal deputy as
the Deputy Attorney General may designate, provides prior
written authorization that the funds may be expended to host
a conference.
(B) Written approval.--Written approval under subparagraph
(A) shall include a written estimate of all costs associated
with the conference, including the cost of all food and
beverages, audio/visual equipment, honoraria for speakers,
and any entertainment.
(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all conference expenditures approved by
operation of this paragraph.
(9) Prohibition on lobbying activity.--
(A) In general.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated
under this Act may not be utilized by any grant recipient
to--
(i) lobby any representative of the Department of Justice
regarding the award of grant funding; or
(ii) lobby any representative of a Federal, state, local,
or tribal government regarding the award of grant funding.
(B) Penalty.--If the Attorney General determines that any
recipient of a grant under this Act has violated subparagraph
(A), the Attorney General shall--
(i) require the grant recipient to repay the grant in full;
and
(ii) prohibit the grant recipient from receiving another
grant under this Act for not less than 5 years.

SEC. 6. SUNSET.

Effective on December 31, 2018, subsections (a)(7) and (n)
of section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(a)(7) and (n)) are repealed.
______

By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr.
Blumenthal, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
S. 85. A bill to provide incentives for States to invest in practices
and technology that are designed to expedite voting at the polls and to
simplify voter registration; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, we are no longer in an election year, which
makes this the perfect time for this Congress to take action on real
and meaningful election reform. Regardless of which candidates we voted
for last November, we can all agree that in the world's greatest
democracy, in the year 2013 we should put in place systems which ensure
every voter will be able to cast their ballot without unnecessary
delays, redtape, or restriction in our next elections. That is why I am
looking forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, with
leaders in State and local governments across the country, and with
folks in the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss ways we can reform
our election process to make voting more accessible for more Americans.
In his second inaugural address delivered just this Monday, President
Obama made a point to tie voting rights to civil rights. President
Obama spoke of the long American march toward justice. He said:

And the first steps of that march--of the journey toward a
better, fairer, more equal society, one where every American,
regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or
economic status, has the same shot at success--has always
started at the ballot box.

President Obama mentioned Seneca Falls, a central moment in the
movement for women's suffrage, and Selma, the emotional heart of the
fight for equal access to voting rights for African Americans. He said:

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to
wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

He is right.
The 2012 elections were a wake-up call to those of us who treasure
the right to vote. All over our country--in blue States and red
States--Americans saw their fundamental right to vote eroded by
exceptionally long lines, confusing rules, and widespread voting
machine malfunctions. There were problems in more than a dozen States
documented in the media.
There were voting machine irregularities in Pennsylvania and
Colorado; error-ridden voter rolls in Ohio; delays counting ballots in
Arizona; voters waiting in lines 5 hours long in Virginia and 8 hours
long in Florida. We have to do better than this.
As Americans, the right to vote is in our DNA. So just days after
these 2012 elections, which had such widespread problems, I introduced
the FAST Voting Act, the Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely Voting Act,
along with Senator Warner and colleagues in the House, Congressman
Connolly and Congressman Langevin.
Our bill challenges States to implement commonsense changes well
before the next election. It would provide incentives and competitive
grants to those States that can turn around their poorest performing
polling places, improve the administration of their elections, and make
voting faster and more accessible to all voters.
As a former county executive myself, I know States and local
governments are laboratories of democracy. When it comes to
administering elections, many States and counties are getting it right.
We can learn from them and replicate their successes elsewhere in the
country to ensure these same problems do not plague the next national
elections.
For example, Florida was one of many States with rampant election
problems in 2012. There were long lines, limited early voting, and
other issues that may have disenfranchised as many as 49,000
Floridians, according to a study by Professor Theodore Allen of Ohio
State University.
Floridians such as Richard Jordan waited more than 3 hours in a line
that just was not moving to try and cast his ballot on election day
2012. He had already worked a 10-hour shift that day. He was exhausted,
his back hurt, he was hungry, and ultimately in anger decided he could
not wait anymore. He simply gave up and walked away. He was denied the
opportunity to cast his ballot by an unprepared, underresourced, or
just incompetent election system.
On behalf of voters across the State such as Richard, earlier this
month Florida's elections administrators presented Florida's Governor
Rick Scott with a list of reforms they would like to see implemented to
prevent these problems from happening again. Governor Scott admitted
that his own State's election process was clearly in need of
improvement. He said he agreed with some of the election supervisors'
proposals. In my view, this is a very positive step forward, and one
which should be undertaken in every State where there is documented
need for stronger, fairer, faster, and freer elections.

[[Page S218]]

In my view, the government can and should play a role in
incentivizing that process to ensure that election improvements are
made to last. It can help States move forward in using available
technology, and it can ensure States do a better job of enforcing laws
that are already on the books.
For example, the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as
the motor voter law, requires States to allow voters to register when
they renew their driver's license at the DMV or at other governmental
agencies. Yet there are substantial and credible allegations that some
States all across this country--whether blue, red, or purple--are not
fulfilling their obligations under this act.
In talking with elections administrators from around the country, it
is clear to me that compliance with existing law is not complete. We
have to do more to ensure voters are afforded the rights given to them
under current law and that State agencies are doing what is required to
simplify the registration process to maintain uniform and
nondiscriminatory voter rolls and provide widespread registration
opportunities. Enforcing existing law is just part of the solution to
the voting problems we saw across our country in 2012.
We also have to look forward at ways to deliver the best and most
efficient voting process to all Americans. There is still much more we
can do to meet that goal, and I think part of the solution is the
mechanism of the FAST Voting Act.
Our legislation focuses on cost-effective reforms, such as making it
easier to register online and ensuring citizens who move to a new
jurisdiction can easily transfer their voter registration. If we use
modern technology that we already have at our disposal, we can make it
easier for all eligible American citizens to cast their ballot and
ensure every vote is counted.
President Obama was right to mention election reform alongside the
most essential civil rights struggles in our country's history in his
inaugural address on Monday. Making it harder for citizens to vote is a
violation of their civil rights. Long lines are just another form of
voter disenfranchisement. Running out of ballots can be just another
form of voter suppression. The fact is access to vote is denied when
registration is cumbersome or inaccessible and when early voter vote-
by-mail options are just not available.
Let's do something now when we are no longer hamstrung by election
year politics in the Senate so that changes that last and make a
difference can be implemented well before the next election.
As someone who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and who
often speaks with foreign heads of State, civil society leaders, and
voting advocates from around the world, it is an embarrassment that in
2012 our Nation could not overcome the simple challenges to ensuring
fair and accurate elections all across our country.
If we ignore these assaults on America's civil rights that we saw
last November, we are certain to have to endure them the next time
around. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Our democracy
needs to be a model to the rest of the world for how to ensure that
every citizen gets to exercise the right to vote.
Let's find a way to come together to put meaningful election reforms
in place now before we deny one more American their fundamental right
to vote for the candidate of their choice.
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. 85

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 ``Louis L. Redding Fair,
Accurate, Secure, and Timely Voting Act of 2013'' or the
``FAST Voting Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. INCENTIVES FOR STATES TO INVEST IN PRACTICES AND
TECHNOLOGY THAT ARE DESIGNED TO EXPEDITE VOTING
AT THE POLLS AND SIMPLIFY VOTER REGISTRATION.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) provide incentives for States to invest in practices
and technology that are designed to expedite voting at the
polls; and
(2) provide incentives for States to simplify voter
registration.
(b) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount made available
to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the Attorney
General may reserve not more than 10 percent of such amount
to carry out activities related to--
(1) technical assistance; and
(2) outreach and dissemination.
(c) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--From the amounts made available under
subsection (h) for a fiscal year and not reserved under
subsection (b), the Attorney General shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, to States in accordance with subsection
(d)(2), to enable the States to carry out the purposes of
this section.
(2) Number of grants.--A State may not receive more than 1
grant under this section per grant period.
(3) Duration of grants.--
(A) In general.--A grant under this section shall be
awarded for a period of not more than 4 years.
(B) Continuation of grants.--A State that is awarded a
grant under this section shall not receive grant funds under
this section for the second or any subsequent year of the
grant unless the State demonstrates to the Attorney General,
at such time and in such manner as determined by the Attorney
General, that the State is--
(i) making progress in implementing the plan under
subsection (d)(1)(C) at a rate that the Attorney General
determines will result in the State fully implementing such
plan during the remainder of the grant period; or
(ii) making progress against the performance measures set
forth in subsection (e) at a rate that the Attorney General
determines will result in the State reaching its targets and
achieving the objectives of the grant during the remainder of
the grant period.
(d) Applications.--
(1) Applications.--Each State that desires to receive a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Attorney General may reasonably
require. At a minimum, each such application shall include--
(A) documentation of the applicant's record, as
applicable--
(i) in providing various voter registration opportunities;
(ii) in providing early voting;
(iii) in providing absentee voting;
(iv) in providing assistance to voters who do not speak
English as a primary language;
(v) in providing assistance to voters with disabilities;
(vi) in providing effective access to voting for members of
the armed services;
(vii) in providing formal training of election officials;
(viii) in auditing or otherwise documenting waiting times
at polling stations;
(ix) in allocating polling locations, equipment, and staff
to match population distribution;
(x) in responding to voting irregularities and concerns
raised at polling stations;
(xi) in creating and adhering to contingency voting plans
in the event of a natural or other disaster; and
(xii) with respect to any other performance measure
described in subsection (e) that is not included in clauses
(i) through (xi);
(B) evidence of conditions of innovation and reform that
the applicant has established and the applicant's proposed
plan for implementing additional conditions for innovation
and reform, including--
(i) a description of how the applicant has identified and
eliminated ineffective practices in the past and the
applicant's plan for doing so in the future;
(ii) a description of how the applicant has identified and
promoted effective practices in the past and the applicant's
plan for doing so in the future; and
(iii) steps the applicant has taken and will take to
eliminate statutory, regulatory, procedural, or other
barriers and to facilitate the full implementation of the
proposed plan under this subparagraph;
(C) a comprehensive and coherent plan for using funds under
this section, and other Federal, State, and local funds, to
improve the applicant's performance on the measures described
in subsection (e), consistent with criteria set forth by the
Attorney General, including how the applicant will, if
applicable--
(i) provide flexible registration opportunities, including
online and same-day registration and registration updating;
(ii) provide early voting, at a minimum of 9 of the 10
calendar days preceding an election, at sufficient and
flexible hours;
(iii) provide absentee voting, including no-excuse absentee
voting;
(iv) provide assistance to voters who do not speak English
as a primary language;
(v) provide assistance to voters with disabilities,
including visual impairment;
(vi) provide effective access to voting for members of the
armed services;
(vii) provide formal training of election officials,
including State and county administrators and volunteers;
(viii) audit and reduce waiting times at polling stations;
(ix) allocate polling locations, equipment, and staff to
match population distribution;
(x) respond to any reports of voting irregularities or
concerns raised at the polling station;
(xi) create contingency voting plans in the event of a
natural or other disaster; and
(xii) improve the wait times at the persistently poorest
performing polling stations within the jurisdiction of the
applicant;

[[Page S219]]

(D) evidence of collaboration between the State, local
election officials, and other stakeholders, in developing the
plan described in subparagraph (C), including evidence of the
commitment and capacity to implement the plan;
(E) the applicant's annual performance measures and
targets, consistent with the requirements of subsection (e);
and
(F) a description of the applicant's plan to conduct a
rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of activities
carried out with funds under this section.
(2) Criteria for evaluating applications.--
(A) Award basis.--The Attorney General shall award grants
under this section on a competitive basis, based on the
quality of the applications submitted under paragraph (1),
including--
(i) each applicant's record in the areas described in
paragraph (1)(A);
(ii) each applicant's record of, and commitment to,
establishing conditions for innovation and reform, as
described in paragraph (1)(B);
(iii) the quality and likelihood of success of each
applicant's plan described in paragraph (1)(C) in showing
improvement in the areas described in paragraph (1)(A),
including each applicant's capacity to implement the plan and
evidence of collaboration as described in paragraph (1)(D);
and
(iv) each applicant's evaluation plan as described in
paragraph (1)(F).
(B) Explanation.--The Attorney General shall publish an
explanation of how the application review process under this
paragraph will ensure an equitable and objective evaluation
based on the criteria described in subparagraph (A).
(e) Performance Measures.--Each State receiving a grant
under this section shall establish performance measures and
targets, approved by the Attorney General, for the programs
and activities carried out under this section. These measures
shall, at a minimum, track the State's progress--
(1) in implementing its plan described in subsection
(d)(1)(C);
(2) in expediting voting at the polls or simplifying voter
registration, as applicable; and
(3) on any other measures identified by the Attorney
General.
(f) Uses of Funds.--Each State that receives a grant under
this section shall use the grant funds for any purpose
included in the State's plan under subsection (d)(1)(C).
(g) Reporting.--A State that receives a grant under this
section shall submit to the Attorney General, at such time
and in such manner as the Attorney General may require, an
annual report including--
(1) data on the State's progress in achieving the targets
for the performance measures established under subsection
(e);
(2) a description of the challenges the State has faced in
implementing its program and how it has addressed or plans to
address those challenges; and
(3) findings from the evaluation plan as described in
subsection (d)(1)(F).
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
______

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 103. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a special resource study of P.S. 103 in West Baltimore, Maryland, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Justice
Thurgood Marshall's Elementary School Study Act. The elementary school
that Justice Marshall attended, known as PS 103, located in my hometown
of Baltimore, is a place of national significance because it marks the
site where one of our Nation's greatest legal minds began his
education.
Thurgood Marshall is well known as one of the most significant
historical figures of the American civil rights movement. By the time
he was 32, he was appointed the chief legal counsel for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. He served at
the NAACP a total of 25 years and was a key strategist to end racial
segregation throughout the United States.
Perhaps the greatest illustration of this effort was his victory
before the Supreme Court overturning the Plessy doctrine effectively
ending school segregation with the landmark decision in Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka, KS, in 1954. Not only did this case open up
educational opportunity and sparked the civil rights movement in this
Nation, it also marked the beginning of Thurgood Marshall's career,
still a young attorney from Baltimore, as one of the greatest legal
minds in all the land. This case was just one of the 29 cases he won
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fittingly, Marshall was the first African American confirmed to the
Supreme Court. He was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967
and served 24 years, until 1991. On the high court, Marshall continued
his fight for the Constitutional protection of individual human rights.
But Thurgood Marshall was not always a legal giant. He was once a
young boy growing up in West Baltimore. He received the first 6 years
of his public education at PS 103. An apocryphal story goes that a
young Thurgood Marshall studied the U.S. Constitution in the basement
of the building while serving detention. Regardless of whether or not
this is true, the building powerfully tells the story of racial
segregation in America, PS 103 was a ``blacks only'' school when
Justice Marshall was a student, and marks the academic beginning of one
of the country's most brilliant legal thinkers and a pioneer of the
civil rights movement.
The building is located at 1315 Division Street in the Upton
Neighborhood of Old West Baltimore. The building is part of the Old
West Baltimore National Register Historic District, and is listed as a
contributing historic resource for the neighborhood. The Old West
Baltimore historic district is one of the largest predominately African
American historic districts in the country, and its significance is
centered on the African American experience in the area.
In Baltimore, we are fortunate to have the National Park Service
operate two historical sites, Fort McHenry and the Hampton Mansion.
Adding PS 103 is a unique opportunity for the National Park Service to
work in Baltimore's inner-city and to reach out and engage people about
African American history.
Needless to say, Thurgood Marshall's legacy is one that should be
preserved. He was one of our country's greatest legal minds and a
prominent historical figure of one chapter of our country's great
history--the civil rights movement. This bill authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of PS 103 to
evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the building
as a unit of the National Park Service. Preserving the building that
was Justice Marshall's elementary school will give Americans insight
into Justice Marshall's childhood.
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. 103

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 ``Thurgood Marshall's
Elementary School Study Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means P.S. 103,
the public school located in West Baltimore, Maryland, which
Thurgood Marshall attended as a youth.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource
study of the study area.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate the national significance of the study area;
(2) determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating the study area as a unit of the National Park
System;
(3) consider other alternatives for preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the study area by the
Federal Government, State or local government entities, or
private and nonprofit organizations;
(4) consult with interested Federal agencies, State or
local governmental entities, private and nonprofit
organizations, or any other interested individuals;
(5) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition,
development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance
associated with the alternatives; and
(6) identify any authorities that would compel or permit
the Secretary to influence local land use decisions under the
alternatives.
(c) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 8 of the
National Park System General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-
5).
(d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are first made available to carry out the study under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report that describes--

[[Page S220]]

(1) the results of the study; and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Franken):
S. 113. 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, I rise today to reintroduce two pieces of
legislation: the Know Before You Owe Act and the Fairness for
Struggling Students Act. These bills will take critical steps toward
addressing the student debt crisis facing America.
Every week my office is contacted by young people and their families
who share with me their horror stories about student debt. Many of them
are college students or graduates who are getting crushed by student
loans the size of mortgages. All too often, these young people were
lured into attending worthless, for-profit colleges that left them with
worthless diplomas and mountains of debt. It is disgraceful. But it is
not only young people facing this debt crisis, it is their parents,
their siblings, even their grandparents who did them a favor by
cosigning on these loans. They, too, are being held responsible when
the loans go into default.
Many of these people contact my office because they don't know where
to turn. Their debt loan leaves them feeling helpless. They are putting
off major life decisions such as buying a home or even starting a
family because of crushing student debt. We can't stand idly by any
longer and ignore this reality. We have to step up and recognize that
this student debt bomb is ticking away.
Student loan debt among college students surpassed $1 trillion last
year. The New York Fed reports that balances of student loans have now
exceeded the balances on automobile loans and credit card debt in
America--student loans. That makes student loans the largest form of
consumer debt outside of home mortgages.
Last year, 37 million borrowers held student loan debt. That is more
than 10 percent of the population of this country. The average balance
is $24,300. But, remember, that is an average. This is a massive amount
of debt, and it is having a profound impact on the lives of students
and their families across America.
The overall growth in student debt is troubling. The most pressing
concern is what is known as private student loans. If a student goes to
college, they could qualify for a government-guaranteed loan with
dramatically lower interest rates with accommodations based on their
employment and even some loan forgiveness. Not so when it comes to
private student loans in most cases. Students who take out Federal
loans receive affordable interest rates, a lot of protections and
repayment options. Private student loans are totally different. Private
student loans often have high variable interest rates, hefty
origination fees, lack of repayment options, and, unfortunately,
crushing penalties.
In 2012 the amount of outstanding private student loans exceeded $150
billion. Students are being steered into these private loans while they
are still eligible for the better government loans. Why? Because
somebody is making more money when they sign up for private student
loans. As a result, many students are being saddled with debt they
don't have to be saddled with and sometimes debt they can never repay.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year reported that at
least 850,000 individual private student loans were in default
amounting to more than $8 billion.
Let me tell my colleagues about one of those students. I have opened
on my official Web site a place where those who have student loans and
want to share their stories can come. Anna Wilcox, who is 31 years old,
did. She attended the Brooks Institute of Photography, a for-profit
college owned by the Career Education Corporation.
Anna Wilcox saw a TV ad one day about this so-called Brooks Institute
of Photography and decided she would call and inquire. The school
called her twice a day until she finally enrolled. The recruiter at the
school--this Career Education Corporation School--told her that a
Brooks degree would help her make $85,000 a year as a photographer. So
Anna enrolled, and when she graduated in 2006, she had a debt of about
$170,000, almost all of it in private student loans.
Anna was 24 years old with $170,000 in student debt from this for-
profit school. With a variable interest rate that went as high as 18
percent, her balance just kept growing. Her monthly payments on her
private student loan now exceed $1,000 a month. Her Federal loans she
took out as well had low interest rates. She said those payments are
reasonable, and she can handle them. Her parents decided to help her
out and cosigned on the loans. Now her parents, in their sixties, are
on the hook as well. They have to change their life plans because they
wanted to help their daughter, and now they are stuck with a debt of
$170,000 for a worthless diploma from a for-profit school.
Well, Anna did find a job, but the job doesn't pay anywhere near
$85,000 a year. She just can't keep up with these staggering monthly
loan payments. She said she would like to file for bankruptcy, clean
the slate, and start over. She can't borrow money to go to a real
school. She has wasted her borrowing power on these for-profit schools.
It doesn't do her any good to want to file for bankruptcy. Private
student loans are not dischargeable for bankruptcy. If a person signs
up as a college student for one of these student loans, it is debt that
will follow that person for a lifetime. There is no way to escape it.
It is something to think about long and hard when students make that
decision.
Anna is very blunt and despondent. She said she made a big mistake
going to the school. It was a waste. She thought she would get a better
life by going to college. She didn't realize these for-profit schools
by and large are a waste of money and cause debt that most students can
never pay back. She has bad credit now and a mountain of debt to show
for it.
So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to say: Well, Anna,
you should have been a little bit smarter when you were 19 years old
and sat across the desk from somebody who said: We want you as a
college student. You made your mistake, girl. That is the way it works
in America, and now you have to pay the price. Is that the answer? Is
that the answer when these for-profit schools depend on the Federal
Government and taxpayers for 85 to 95 percent of all of the revenue
they take in?
These for-profit schools, if we took the Federal money we send their
way--if these for-profit schools were a Federal agency, it would be the
ninth largest Federal agency in America. That is how much money we are
pouring into these for-profit schools.
Let me just put three numbers out for people to reflect on: 12
percent of the students out of high school go to for-profit schools. We
know their names. They are students who gather in Washington and come
to the galleries. They know what I am talking about. Go on the Internet
and try to escape an ad for a for-profit school: University of Phoenix,
DeVry, Kaplan. Ring a bell? Well, I can tell my colleagues these are
the biggies, but there are hundreds of them. Twelve percent of the
students after high school go to for-profit schools.
For-profit schools, though, account for 25 percent of all of the
Federal aid to education. They just soak it up. Students borrow and
turn it over to the for-profit schools. The student is stuck with the
debt. The for-profit school may never graduate you, but they have their
money.
There is a third number to remember. The first is 12, the second is
25. The third number is 47. Forty-seven percent of the student loan
defaults in America are students from for-profit schools, students
being dragged into these schools that charge way too much for tuition
and then the student either can't finish the school or gets out of
school and can't find a job and they are stuck.
I tell my students back home, if you are not sure, start at a
community college. It is affordable. It has a wide array of courses to
be offered to you. You will learn a lot about yourself, you will learn
a lot about what you want to

[[Page S221]]

do in school, and you will not end up sunk in debt like these for-
profit schools want to do to you.
We have to do something about Anna Wilcox's plight and many others
just like her.
I wish to commend especially one community college in my State, the
Elgin Community College. I have been visiting that school regularly and
always come home thinking: This college gets it. They have implemented
a financial counseling program that goes above and beyond anything I
would put into law. All of the students at Elgin Community College in
Elgin, IL, must submit a monthly budget detailing all their costs when
they are seeking financial aid. The student then has a mandatory, one-
on-one meeting with a counselor to review the loan balance, the
repayment options, and what happens if they default. This community
college has implemented a workshop for students who will be graduating
during the upcoming semester to discuss repayment options and give them
a complete summary of every loan they have taken out.
These students are facing debt the likes of which they have never
seen in their lives. They are motivated by all of the preaching they
have heard from their parents, like me, saying: Go to school. Get a
degree. They are ready to sign up because they want to do what they
think is the right thing. They do not know that the for-profit school
is worthless, they do not know that the thousands and thousands of
dollars of debt will never be able to be repaid, and they do not know
that debt will be with them for a lifetime. So here are some bills I am
introducing to address it.
I believe students will benefit more if they have the kind of loan
counseling we see at the Elgin Community College. I am joining Senator
Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the HELP Committee, in reintroducing
the Know Before You Owe Private Student Loan Act of 2013.
The legislation requires colleges to confirm a student's enrollment
status, cost of attendance, and estimated Federal financial aid
assistance before any private student loan can be approved for that
student. In other words, if you are eligible for the government loan,
for goodness' sakes, take that first. The private student loan is much
more expensive, and it is tougher to pay it back. So we want to make
sure students who are eligible for government loans know that before
they sign up for the private student loans. Often, students have not
even applied for Federal aid before they are encouraged by some of
these schools to apply for private student loans, or students have not
exhausted their eligibility for Federal aid. Requiring school
certification would give the school the opportunity to make students
aware of Federal student aid options and the most affordable options.
The bill would also require schools to counsel the students about
their loan options. Schools would be required to inform students about
the differences between Federal student loans and private student
loans, and they are stark and dramatic. For students who decide to take
out private student loans, the bill would require lenders to provide
them with quarterly up-to-date information about their balance and
interest accrued. It is not one of these deals where you just keep
borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, and finally when you are about
to finish school--or years later--they give you the total, and you look
at it and say: My goodness, I did not realize I had signed up for all
of that debt.
This legislation is supported by a large coalition of educational,
student, and consumer organizations and has been recommended by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The other bill I am reintroducing today is the Fairness for
Struggling Students Act. This bill, cosponsored by Senators Whitehouse,
Franken, Harkin, and Jack Reed, would restore the Bankruptcy Code's
pre-2005 treatment of private student loans.
As I said earlier, since 2005 private student loans have enjoyed a
privileged status under the Bankruptcy Code. They cannot be discharged
in bankruptcy except under the most extreme circumstances. Only a few
other types of debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy--criminal fines,
child support, taxes, and alimony. In contrast, nearly all types of
private, unsecured debt--credit card debt, doctor bills--are
dischargeable in bankruptcy, but not student loans.
There was no good reason for Congress to give such preferred
treatment to these financial institutions that are peddling these
private student loans. It was a provision--a sweetheart provision--
tucked into a massive bankruptcy reform bill with very little debate
and even less justification. There is no evidence that private student
loan borrowers were abusing the bankruptcy system before this law was
changed. In fact, the private student loan market has been growing--
even before this measure was enacted into law. But the private student
loan industry got a sweetheart deal out of Congress, and now we are in
a situation where many students have overwhelming private student loan
debt, and they cannot repay, and they cannot escape. This is
devastating for those students and a drag on our overall economy.
There was an article a few months ago in the New York Times, and it
talked about a grandmother who was having her Social Security check
garnished because she had signed on as a cosigner of her
granddaughter's student loan. Her granddaughter dropped out of college
and could not pay back the loan, and now we are going after grandma's
Social Security check. That is how serious this can be.
A large coalition of student, educational, civil rights, and consumer
organizations support this bill. I hope we can move forward with
legislation this year. It is time to restore fairness to our Bankruptcy
Code when it comes to student debt.
Let me be clear: When used appropriately, student loans are valuable
and important. I would not be standing here today if I had not borrowed
money from the Federal Government to go to college and law school. I
never could have afforded it otherwise. It was called the National
Defense Education Act. If I told you the numbers that I borrowed, you
would realize how old I am. But at the time, it was scary to have that
much debt coming fresh out of law school. I paid it back just like I
was supposed to so the next generation could take over. But what I
faced, the debt I incurred to go to school and law school, does not
even come close to matching what many students have to borrow in the
first semester, and that, unfortunately, leads to a debt that some will
be crushed with for a lifetime. In many instances, student loans help
Americans get a quality higher education and the job skills they need
to repay their loans and have a rewarding life and career. But,
unfortunately, there are far too many Americans who have been steered
into high-cost private loans that will burden them for life and prevent
them from fully contributing to our economy.
It is about time we woke up to the reality of what students--millions
of students--across America are facing, and their families. We have a
responsibility to them over and above the profits that are being earned
by for-profit schools and the financial institutions peddling these
private student loans with these outrageous interest rates and terms.
It is time for this Congress to listen to working families and their
kids all across America to restore transparency, fairness, and common
sense to private student loans. I urge my colleagues to support these
bills.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be
printed in the Record as follows:

S. 113

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 2013''.

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:
``(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--

[[Page S222]]

``(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.

S. 114

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 ``Fairness for Struggling
Students Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.

Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows
through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting
``dependents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan
made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or made
under any program funded in whole or in part by a
governmental unit or an obligation to repay funds received
from a governmental unit as an educational benefit,
scholarship, or stipend;''.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Coons, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Begich):
S. 116. A bill to revise and extend provisions under the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Murkowski, Durbin, Collins, Tom Udall, Murray, Lautenberg, Blumenthal,
Coons, Klobuchar, and Stabenow in the introduction of the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization.
This legislation is named for the son of Senator Gordon Smith, our
former colleague, who took his own life at the young age of 22. After
this tragedy, Senator Smith rallied support from members across the
aisle and in both chambers to prevent other children from doing the
same with passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004. Since
then, it has retained its bipartisan support among Members of Congress
and over 40 member organizations of the Mental Health Liaison Group.

[[Page S223]]

However, the recent horrific mass shooting in Newtown, CT shows that
more work must be done to address the mental and behavioral health of
children and young adults before they hurt themselves and others.
Indeed, what is so clear now from this terrible tragedy is that we have
young people who desperately need help. Parents also need help in
identifying early warning signs of mental illness and accessing the
appropriate treatment before it is too late.
The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act authorizes critical resources for
schools, elementary schools through college where children and young
adults spend most of their time, to be able to reach at risk youth.
Currently, this law supports 40 States, 38 tribes and tribal
organizations, and 85 colleges and universities in their efforts to
address mental health and prevent suicides among their youth.
The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today would increase the
authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the
implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address
mental illness and reduce youth suicide. It will enable more schools to
offer critical services to students and provide greater flexibility in
the use of funds, particularly on college campuses.
Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for adolescents and
young adults age 10 to 24, up from the third leading cause of death in
this population just a few years ago, and results in 4,800 lives lost
each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Additionally, the CDC reports that 157,000 young adults in this age
group are treated for self-inflicted injuries annually, often as the
result of a failed suicide attempt.
We can play a role in helping these children and their families. I am
pleased that President Obama and Vice President Biden recognized this
and included in their Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities
by Reducing Gun Violence a recommendation to increase support for young
adults ages 16 to 25, a population with high rates of mental illness,
substance abuse, and suicide that is unlikely to seek help. Indeed,
passing the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization is one way
we can better address the mental health needs of this population.
My colleague, Chairman Harkin, will be holding a hearing on the
status of the mental health system in our country tomorrow. I look
forward to continuing to work with him and others to act on the
President's recommendations to improve mental and behavioral health
care services, particularly for children and young people. This should
be something that we do automatically when it comes to the welfare of
our children but is even more urgently required in the wake of the
terrible recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere.
______

By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coburn,
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Cruz):
S. 122. A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity
by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal
Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered
primarily by the States; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about our Tax
Code as well as our economic future. There is a problem with our Tax
Code, one that hits home with nearly all Americans; that is, its
complexity. In the past few years I have met with hundreds of
constituents who are worried about this issue. Individuals, small
businesses, farms, and large corporations alike struggle with meeting
their obligations to the IRS because of the complexity of our current
Tax Code.
Earlier this month the IRS Taxpayer Advocate revealed some startling
figures in the Agency's annual report to Congress. It estimates that
individuals and businesses spend 6.1 billion hours each year complying
with the IRS tax filing requirements. The complexity of the Tax Code is
so burdensome that 9 out of 10 taxpayers now pay a professional
preparer or use often costly commercial software to assist in tax
preparation.
Then there is the problem with our corporate taxes. The United States
has the highest marginal effective tax rate among the largest developed
nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
According to recent studies by the Cato Institute, that rate for U.S.
corporations is almost 36 percent. In fact, only Argentina, Chad, and
Uzbekistan have higher tax rates than does the United States. While the
U.S. corporate rates have remained high, other countries are lowering
their rates. Sweden, for example, has become the latest country to
announce that it will lower corporate tax rates, in part to help
attract more foreign investment. Our corporate tax rates continue to be
higher than they should, and we lose our competitive advantage to other
nations in part because of that high tax rate.
I want to talk about a way to fix both these problems. Since joining
the Senate, I have introduced in each new Congress the Fair Tax Act.
Today I am reintroducing this legislation because of my belief that the
Fair Tax Act can fix the problems built into our current Tax Code. The
fair tax will promote freedom and economic opportunity by eliminating
our current archaic and inefficient Tax Code and replacing it with a
simpler, fairer means of collecting tax revenue. It will repeal the
individual income tax, the corporate income tax, capital gains taxes,
all payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, and the estate and gift tax
in lieu of a 23-percent tax on the final sale of goods and services.
Elimination of these inefficient taxing mechanisms will not only bring
about equality within our tax system, it will also bring about
simplicity. It will provide tax relief for business-to-business
transactions. These transactions, including those for used goods that
have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax, so there
would be no double taxation.
Some of my colleagues have asked how the fair tax would affect our
revenue on our entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare
benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax Act. There would be
no financial reductions to either of these vital programs. Instead, the
source of the trust fund revenue for these two programs would be
replaced simply by the sales tax revenue instead of by payroll tax
revenue.
Another question I get is how the fair tax would affect impoverished
Americans. Under the Fair Tax Act, every American would receive a
monthly rebate check equal to the spending up to the Federal poverty
level, according to Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.
This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of
necessities.
We have made nearly 5,000 changes to the Tax Code since 2001--I have
supported some of them, and I have not supported others--all in the
name of improvement and economic benefit. I believe we can do better
than simply lowering our taxes. I know we can make a bigger impact on
our economic future by ridding ourselves of a tax structure that is
holding us back.
Ronald Reagan once said:

I believe we really can, however, say that God did give
mankind virtually unlimited gifts to invent, produce and
create. And for that reason alone, it would be wrong for
governments to devise a tax structure or economic system that
suppresses and denies those gifts.

With that statement, I could not agree more.

____________________