[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.

                          ____________________