[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 14 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S439-S445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Rubio, Mr.
Blunt, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Moran):
S. 193. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for startup businesses to use a portion of the research and development
credit to offset payroll taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, each and every day the folks I represent in
Delaware ask me why doesn't the Senate, why doesn't the Congress focus
on jobs and focus on getting our economy moving again instead of what
seem to be endless partisan struggles over secondary issues.
What I wanted to speak to was a bipartisan bill, which I am
introducing, which focuses on how to help create innovation-focused
jobs again in the United States.
As you know all too well, our economic recovery has been slower than
we had hoped. Although it has been steady, there are still far too many
Americans out of work in my home State of Delaware, more than 30,000,
but we are building our way back.
The task before us is to think not just about an immediate economic
crisis but to take a breath and, instead, focus strategically on the
long-term future, to take account of what kind of an economy we want to
build for our children and our grandchildren for the America of today
and tomorrow.
The engine of our Nation's greatest economic successes has always
been innovation. From the light bulb to the search engine, American
inventors and innovators, those who have taken risks and started
companies, have created jobs by the thousands and changed lives by the
millions. Before new ideas scaled to market and reach out to change the
world, they first have to start in a lab or garage.
I know from my own 8 years in the private sector, my work for a
materials-based science company in Delaware, the products we take for
granted that are today household items in the world marketplace, often
started as just the sliver of an idea, an idea that
[[Page S440]]
needed refining through determined investment in research and
development.
If we want to fuel the next generation of innovation, if we want to
lay a strong foundation for job creation through invention, I think we
have to start by supporting research and development. Research and
development is the lifeblood of great American companies and is what
will allow us to make things in this country and to be a leading
manufacturer in the world and deserves focused investment.
If we look at it, nearly 70 percent of America's private sector R&D
and about 90 percent our patents are actually in manufacturing, a
sector that deserves particular attention. Revitalizing American
manufacturing will create high-quality, middle-class jobs for the long
run, but doing so depends on our ability to take great ideas and turn
them into marketable products or improvements in manufacturing
processes that can and will result in things being made right here in
America. Startups and small businesses all across this country are
already taking chances to do just that, and I think it is time for all
of us in Congress to take a chance on them.
Last year, I worked in a bipartisan way with Senator Enzi, Senator
Rubio, Senator Schumer, and others to introduce a bill that would make
startup companies eligible for the existing research and development or
R&D tax credit. I am proud to reintroduce that legislation as the
Startup Innovation Credit Act of 2013 with our original cosponsors, as
well as Senator Blunt, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Moran.
This broad bipartisan support suggests a bill whose time has come.
Although we represent, among the cosponsors, very different parts of
our country, very different backgrounds, all of us know that to
strengthen our economy we have to support innovation and
entrepreneurship. Each of us is committed to fostering the kind of
environment which supports the private sector and which turns ideas
into innovations, innovations into products, and products into
companies that help create good jobs.
Under current policy, one way we do that federally is by supporting
research and development through the existing R&D tax credit. Companies
that invest in R&D generate new products, which sparks new industries
with spillover benefits for all kinds of sectors. That is why there has
long been strong bipartisan support for the existing R&D tax credit. By
all accounts it is working. The R&D has helped tens of thousands of
American companies succeed and create jobs.
But there is a critical gap in the existing R&D credit. It isn't
available to startups because they are not yet profitable, and thus
they don't have an income tax liability against which to take a credit.
In fact, more than half the R&D credit last year was taken by companies
with revenue over $1 billion, well-established, profitable companies.
There is nothing wrong with that; it is just not targeting these tax
expenditures toward the sector of our economy that is taking the
greatest risk and in some ways has the greatest potential.
This gaping hole in our policy around R&D can be fixed with a
relatively simple tweak. I have been working on finding this solution
since I first came here. In fact, the very first bill I introduced
included an expanded version of the R&D credit.
Today, we take another step toward seeing this solution implemented
with the reintroduction of this bipartisan Startup Innovation Credit
Act. It says in order to spur research and development, we should allow
companies to claim the R&D tax credit against their employment taxes,
against their W-2 instead of their income tax liability. That opens
this credit to new companies that don't yet have an income tax
liability.
There lots of companies we could choose. Let me pick one example,
DeNovix, a small company based in my home State of Delaware that is
developing instrumentation for bioresearch with a team that includes
molecular biologists and engineering professionals.
The managing director of DeNovix, Fred Kielhorn, said the legislation
we are introducing would help that company to offset some of the costs
of bringing new, innovative, technology-based products to market and
for that this bill earned his strong support.
He is just one of many. There is a remarkable list of outside groups,
companies, and organizations that have supported it. I will mention a
few: Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Revolution, led by Steve Case of
AOL; Delaware Chamber of Commerce; the Association for Manufacturing
Technology Policy; American Small Manufacturers Coalition; and BIO, a
national organization that supports companies doing research and
development in the biotechnology space.
Supporting small innovative companies in critical early stages of
research and development, in my view could unleash untold innovations
for growth and create new jobs for America. At its heart, today's
legislation is a jobs bill.
Between 1980 and 2005, all net new jobs created in the United States
were created by firms 5 years old or less, all of them, about 40
million jobs over those 25 years. This credit is specifically designed
toward those new, young, risk-taking firms. It does not pick winners
and losers, it doesn't focus on a specific area of the economy or
technology, but instead supports all private sector investments,
judgments, and decisions that prioritize investment in research and
development. Cash in the pocket of small startup companies, such as
this tax credit, can make a real difference, especially with financing
and credit so hard to come by.
It was once said the States are the laboratory of democracy. In fact,
that is where this idea has come from. Credits just like this have been
done before in Iowa, Arizona, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and
they have been game changers, helping companies get off the ground and
keep their doors open during those demanding first years where they
invest and spend so much on hiring and growth.
We know this can work. We also know more than half our current
Fortune 500 companies were launched during a recession or a bear
market. The next great American company that may redefine whole
categories that may be known worldwide for its products, its services,
may be starting right now in a garage or lab somewhere in this great
country. It is an exciting prospect.
In fact, we are depending on our inventors, our innovators, and our
small business owners to help innovate our way to a stronger economy
and fuel a new generation of job creation. Let's give them the support
they need and they deserve at a time when they need it the most.
I am grateful for all the cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation
in this Chamber and as well to Congressman Gerlach of Pennsylvania and
Congressman Kind of Wisconsin, who will introduce the House version of
this legislation next week.
Rather than shutting our startups out of the R&D tax credit, let's
open the doors to these innovators and see what they can do. I am
confident they will surprise us yet again with how high they can reach
and how far they can go. I think this is a wise investment in opening
the doors of innovation, invention, and job creation for our future.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Blumenthal):
S. 194. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax rate parity among all tobacco products, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
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. 194
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 ``Tobacco Tax Equity Act of
2013''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING EXCISE TAX EQUITY AMONG ALL TOBACCO
PRODUCT TAX RATES.
(a) Tax Parity for Pipe Tobacco and Roll-Your-Own
Tobacco.--Section 5701(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``$2.8311 cents'' and inserting
``$24.78''.
(b) Tax Parity for Smokeless Tobacco.--
(1) Section 5701(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$1.51'' and inserting
``$13.42'';
[[Page S441]]
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50.33 cents'' and
inserting ``$5.37''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Smokeless tobacco sold in discrete single-use
units.--On discrete single-use units, $50.33 per thousand.''.
(2) Section 5702(m) of such Code is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or chewing tobacco''
and inserting ``chewing tobacco, or discrete single-use
unit'';
(B) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by inserting ``that is not a
discrete single-use unit'' before the period in each such
paragraph;
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Discrete single-use unit.--The term `discrete single-
use unit' means any product containing tobacco that--
``(A) is not intended to be smoked; and
``(B) is in the form of a lozenge, tablet, pill, pouch,
dissolvable strip, or other discrete single-use or single-
dose unit.''.
(c) Tax Parity for Large Cigars.--Paragraph (2) of section
5701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``but not more than 40.26 cents per cigar'' and
inserting ``but not less than 5.033 cents per cigar and not
more than 100.66 cents per cigar''.
(d) Tax Parity for Roll-Your-Own Tobacco and Certain
Processed Tobacco.--Subsection (o) of section 5702 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, or
processed tobacco removed or transferred to a person other
than a person with a permit provided under section 5713''
after ``wrappers thereof''.
(e) Clarifying Tobacco Product Definition and Tax Rate.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 5702 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Tobacco Products.--The term `tobacco products'
means--
``(1) cigars, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco,
and roll-your-own tobacco, and
``(2) any other product containing tobacco that is intended
or expected to be consumed.''.
(2) Tax rate.--Section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Other Tobacco Products.--Any product described in
section 5702(c)(2) or not otherwise described under this
section, including any product that has been determined to be
a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration through
its authorities under the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act, shall be taxed at a level of tax
equivalent to the tax rate for cigarettes on an estimated per
use basis as determined by the Secretary.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to articles
removed (as defined in section 5702(j) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) after the last day of the month which
includes the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Discrete single-use units and processed tobacco.--The
amendments made by subsections (b)(1)(C), (b)(2), and (d)
shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section
5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the date
that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 197. A bill to authorize improvements to flood damage reduction
facilities adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers near
Sacramento, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the
Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2013.
This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area. The
improvements will safeguard hundreds of thousands of homes and
businesses.
There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento.
The Army Corps perpetually cites the city as one of our nation's most
at-risk for severe flooding. A quick review of the Corps' National
Levee Database will tell you why. Of the nearly 300 miles of levees
within 10 miles of Sacramento the Corps has deemed 94 miles of levees,
or 32 percent, ``unacceptable.'' An unacceptable designation means the
levee is deficient to the point where it does not provide the
protection it is supposed to.
The Corps has deemed 29 miles of levees, only 10 percent, ``minimally
acceptable.''
The Corps has yet to even review the remaining 172 miles, 58 percent.
None of the 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento
received the passing grade of ``acceptable.''
But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. And the
Natomas basin, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers,
is the top priority for Sacramento flood control.
More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or
moderate risk of flooding.
The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with more than 10
feet of water should a levee break.
In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.
The risks are clear. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the damage
from a single flood could top $7 billion.
Recognizing the need to upgrade the Natomas levees, the Corps of
Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified
$1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.
According to the report, the principal levee modifications include
the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about
34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of
seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.
In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal
habitat, 200 acres of marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat
to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.
The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden
will be shared.
Understanding the urgency of this work, the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources
have begun work on the levee. They have invested more than $400 million
in the Natomas Basin project, far more than their share, and completed
about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees.
I want to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for this good
work. They have done the right thing, moving ahead before the federal
authorization, because people's lives and property are in danger.
I am proud to say the people of Sacramento have really stepped up and
contributed. On two occasions county voters approved special tax
assessments to begin paying for the repairs on the levee system, first
in 2007 and again in 2011.
The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly with 84.5 percent of
voters supporting the measure.
This kind of local commitment should be a model for the Nation. When
such major vulnerabilities exist that threaten a community, it is
imperative to act quickly.
If the Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating
Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers
per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be
largely underwater.
Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or
restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the
passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.
Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport,
will be jeopardized.
Just months ago Super-storm Sandy slammed into the East Coast. The
destruction in New York and New Jersey reminded us that unpredictable
weather events can overwhelm our infrastructure with devastating
consequences.
But with well-placed timely investments, much of worst damage can be
averted. That's why even during the worst economic downturns in a
generation, Sacramento voters stood together and passed the local tax-
measure to fund this critical project.
We don't know when the next flood will occur, but we do know
Sacramento has a well-documented history of catastrophic flooding.
Record-breaking storms hit the region in 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997.
During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of
Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations
and millions of dollars in damage.
Going back even further, an even more devastating flood in 1861
occurred when the American River Levee failed. California's newly
elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his
inauguration at the State Capitol. The flooding was so bad the state
government was temporarily relocated to San Francisco.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists now believe that the 1861 storm may
have been an atmospheric river storm, or ``ARkStorm.'' These events,
which occur every 200 to 400 years, can produce truly devastating
floods.
In 2011, the USGS conducted a study about the impacts of a large
ARkStorm in California's Central Valley. The results were shocking.
[[Page S442]]
The storm would cause a 300 mile long, 20 mile wide flood zone across
much of our nation's most productive agriculture lands. It would force
the evacuation of 1.5 million residents and cause hundreds of
landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. The study estimates the
cost to private homeowners and businesses would be $725 billion, nearly
three times the cost of a major earthquake in the State.
The bottom line is this: the infrastructure currently in place will
not stand up to a storm of this magnitude.
And the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is
one small step toward preparing for such a disaster.
This legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced with my
friend and colleague Senator Boxer, the Chairwoman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee, last Congress. The only change is that the
current bill does not include language from the previous bill that
specifically allowed ``credits'' for non-federal work on the project.
This modification should not be interpreted to reflect a change my
support for the work of the local entities; I believe they have done
the right thing by beginning construction on this project, and I
support them receiving credit for their work.
Instead, the modification was included to comport with work being
done by Chairwoman Boxer on the upcoming Water Resources Development
Act, or WRDA. That bill will generically address non-Federal crediting
provisions and I will work with Chairman Boxer to ensure that
Sacramento can still receive credits for the work they have completed.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 197
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 ``Natomas Basin Flood
Protection Improvements Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. PROJECT MODIFICATION, AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,
CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, American and
Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section
101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3662; 113 Stat. 319; 117 Stat.
1839; 121 Stat. 1947), is modified to authorize the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to
construct improvements to flood damage reduction facilities
adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers in the
vicinity of Sacramento, California, substantially in
accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers entitled
``American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas
Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California'', and
dated December 30, 2010, at an estimated total cost of
$1,389,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$921,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$468,300,000.
______
By Mr. BEGICH:
S. 199. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
require that oil produced from Federal leases in certain Arctic waters
be transported by pipeline to onshore facilities and to provide for the
sharing of certain outer Continental Shelf revenues from areas in the
Alaska Adjacent Zone; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am
introducing today that would restore basic fairness to how our Nation
shares revenue from energy produced Federal waters.
The Alaska Adjacent Zone Safe Oil Transport and Revenue Sharing Act
would provide Alaskans with the same share of Federal bonus bid and
royalty revenue, 37.5 percent, as residents of Gulf Coast States. This
is about fairness and a fix that is long overdue. Alaskans deserve to
be treated as well as residents of the Gulf Coast. We bear the risks
and the responsibilities of offshore development. It is only fair that
we share in the proceeds.
Revenue sharing will provide funding for the State of Alaska, local
governments and tribes to mitigate effects of development and provide
support for public sector infrastructure required to both develop the
resources and respond in terms of emergency.
The measure distributes to Alaska 37.5 percent of the Federal bonus
bids and royalty share from any energy development, fossil or
renewable. Of that 37.5 percent; 25 percent is directed to local
governments; 25 percent is directed to Alaska Native corporations; 10
percent is directed to tribal governments; and 40 percent is directed
to the State of Alaska.
Additionally, the Federal share is subdivided with 15 percent of the
Federal royalties directed, without further appropriation, to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund; and 7.5 percent directly to deficit
reduction.
In addition, this legislation requires oil produced in the Federal
waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to be brought ashore by
pipeline, a method that is safer than tanker transport and secures
future throughput for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
I am committed to putting in place all the pieces necessary to
responsibly develop oil and gas from the Arctic Ocean. Beyond better
permit coordination, that I have worked on in other legislation and
with the administration, this includes more accurate marine science and
the two main features of this bill: sharing revenue with the state and
coastal communities as well as keeping Trans-Alaska Pipeline System,
TAPS, flowing into the future.
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. 199
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 ``Alaska Adjacent Zone Safe
Oil Transport and Revenue Sharing Act''.
SEC. 2. PRODUCTION OF OIL FROM CERTAIN ARCTIC OFFSHORE
LEASES.
Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1334) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Oil Transportation in Arctic Waters.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) require that oil produced from Federal leases in
Arctic waters in the Chukchi Sea planning area, Beaufort Sea
planning area, or Hope Basin planning area be transported by
pipeline to onshore facilities; and
``(2) provide for, and issue appropriate permits for, the
transportation of oil from Federal leases in Arctic waters in
preproduction phases (including exploration) by means other
than pipeline.''.
SEC. 3. REVENUE SHARING FROM AREAS IN ALASKA ADJACENT ZONE.
Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Revenue Sharing From Areas in Alaska Adjacent Zone.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Coastal political subdivision.--The term `coastal
political subdivision' means a county-equivalent subdivision
of the State all or part of which--
``(i) lies within the coastal zone (as defined in section
304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1453)); and
``(ii) the closest point of which is not more than 300
statute miles from the geographical center of any leased
tract.
``(B) Distance.--The terms `distance' means minimum great
circle distance.
``(C) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means an
Alaska Native entity recognized and eligible to receive
services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the headquarters
of which is located within 300 miles of the geographical
center of a leased tract.
``(D) Leased tract.--The term `leased tract' means a tract
leased under this Act for the purpose of drilling for,
developing, and producing oil or natural gas resources.
``(E) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
solar, wind, ocean, current, wave, tidal, or geothermal
energy.
``(F) State.--The term `State' means the State of Alaska.
``(2) Revenue sharing.--Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and
(5), effective beginning on the date of enactment of this
subsection, the State shall, without further appropriation or
action, receive 37.5 percent of all revenues derived from all
rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and
payable to the United States from energy development in any
area of the Alaska Adjacent Zone, including from all sources
of renewable energy leased, developed, or produced in any
area in the Alaska Adjacent Zone.
``(3) Allocation among coastal political subdivisions of
the state.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 25 percent of
any allocable share of the State, as determined under
paragraph (2), directly to coastal political subdivisions.
``(B) Allocation.--
``(i) In general.--For each leased tract used to calculate
the allocation of the State, the Secretary shall pay the
coastal political subdivisions within 300 miles of the
geographical center of the leased tract based on
[[Page S443]]
the relative distance of the coastal political subdivisions
from the leased tract in accordance with this subparagraph.
``(ii) Distances.--For each coastal political subdivision,
the Secretary shall determine the distance between the point
on the coastal political subdivision coastline closest to the
geographical center of the leased tract and the geographical
center of the tract.
``(iii) Payments.--The Secretary shall divide and allocate
the qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues derived from
the leased tract among coastal political subdivisions in
amounts that are inversely proportional to the applicable
distances determined under clause (ii).
``(4) Allocation among regional corporations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 25 percent of
any allocable share of the State, as determined under this
subsection, directly to certain Regional Corporations
established under section 7(a) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1606(a)).
``(B) Allocation.--
``(i) In general.--For each leased tract used to calculate
the allocation of the State, the Secretary shall pay the
Regional Corporations, after determining those Native
villages within the region of the Regional Corporation which
are within 300 miles of the geographical center of the leased
tract based on the relative distance of such villages from
the leased tract, in accordance with this paragraph.
``(ii) Distances.--For each such village, the Secretary
shall determine the distance between the point in the village
closest to the geographical center of the leased tract and
the geographical center of the tract.
``(iii) Payments.--The Secretary shall divide and allocate
the qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues derived from
the leased tract among the qualifying Regional Corporations
in amounts that are inversely proportional to the distances
of all of the Native villages within each qualifying region.
``(iv) Revenues.--All revenues received by each Regional
Corporation under clause (iii) shall be--
``(I) treated by the Regional Corporation as revenue
subject to the distribution requirements of section
7(i)(1)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1606(i)(1)(A)); and
``(II) divided annually by the Regional Corporation among
all 12 Regional Corporations in accordance with section 7(i)
of that Act.
``(v) Further distribution to village corporations.--A
Regional Corporation receiving revenues under clause (iii) or
(iv)(II) shall further distribute 50 percent of the revenues
received to the Village Corporations in the region and the
class of stockholders who are not residents of those villages
in accordance with section 7(j) of that Act (43 U.S.C.
1606(j)).
``(5) Allocation among indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 10 percent of
any allocable share of the State, as determined under this
subsection, directly to Indian tribes.
``(B) Allocation.--
``(i) In general.--For each leased tract used to calculate
the allocation of the State, the Secretary shall pay Indian
tribes based on the relative distance of the headquarters of
the Indian tribes from the leased tract, in accordance with
this subparagraph.
``(ii) Distances.--For each Indian tribe, the Secretary
shall determine the distance between the location of the
headquarters of the Indian tribe and the geographical center
of the tract.
``(iii) Payments.--The Secretary shall divide and allocate
the qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues derived from
the leased tract among the Indian tribes in amounts that are
inversely proportional to the distances described in clause
(ii).
``(6) Conservation royalty.--After making distributions
under paragraph (2) and section 31, the Secretary shall,
without further appropriation or action, distribute a
conservation royalty equal to 15 percent of Federal royalty
revenues derived from an area leased under this subsection
from all areas leased under this subsection for any year,
into the land and water conservation fund established under
section 2 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-5) to provide financial assistance to States
under section 6 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-8).
``(7) Deficit reduction.--After making distributions in
accordance with paragraph (2) and in accordance with section
31, the Secretary shall, without further appropriation or
action, distribute an amount equal to 7.5 percent of Federal
royalty revenues derived from an area leased under this
subsection from all areas leased under this subsection for
any year, into direct Federal deficit reduction.''.
SEC. 4. IMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAX ON BITUMEN TRANSPORTED INTO
THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 4612 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and natural gasoline''
and inserting ``, natural gasoline, and bitumen'', and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Bitumen.--The term `bitumen' includes diluted
bitumen, bituminous mixtures, or any oil manufactured from
bitumen or a bituminous mixture.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to oil and petroleum products received or entered
after December 31, 2013.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Johanns, Mr. Lee, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker, Mrs.
Fischer, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 202. A bill to expand the use of E-Verify, to hold employers
accountable, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, along with several colleagues, I
am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E-
Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic
Verification Act, wil1 be a tool for employers who want a legal
workforce and it will enhance our ability to hold employers accountable
for their hiring practices.
Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides
employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility
of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to
knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United
States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee
reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its
obligation to review the worker's documents.
Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving
industry after the 1986 bill, Congress looked to create a program to
help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. We created
the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can
electronically verify a new hires' employment authorization by checking
data of employees with records maintained by the Department of Homeland
Security and the Social Security Administration.
Currently, the E-Verify program is voluntary and free for all
employers to use. It is a proven tool in combating illegal immigration.
Today, I am proposing that the program be a staple in every workplace
so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper
foreign labor.
My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to
hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be
required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and
would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving
that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be
required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to
expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas.
My bill also addresses identity theft concerns. The Social Security
Administration would be required to develop algorithm technology that
would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once.
For those who find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would
amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable
regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This
provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that
identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being
used belonged to an actual person.
While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it
serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about
worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are
going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this
year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place
for future generations.
Part of the discussion on immigration will be on a reliable
employment verification program. People back home want employers to be
held accountable. And, employers want to be responsible. People want to
see our government do more to reduce the magnet for people to cross our
borders illegally. We must take this opportunity to make sure that
employers are abiding by, and able to abide by, the rules. Let us give
them the tools they need to do that. I hope more colleagues will join
me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic
verification and by making E-Verify a permanent program.
[[Page S444]]
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. King):
S. 206. A bill to expand the HUBZone program for communities affected
by base realignment and closure, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S.
military installations closed through the so-called Base Closure and
Realignment--or BRAC--process. This legislation mirrors S. 3675, the
HUBZone Expansion Act of 2012, which I introduced with Senator Snowe
last session.
I am pleased to have my new colleague from Maine, Senator Angus King,
join me in offering this legislation. Senator King knows the impact a
base closing can have on a local community all too well, coming as he
does from Brunswick, ME, which recently lost a major military
installation through the BRAC process. Military bases are often the
economic heart of the towns and cities in which they are located, and
communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those
facilities.
In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing
HUBZone status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the
BRAC process. This allows small businesses located within the HUBZone
to obtain certain federal contracting preferences. The HUBZone program
is also available to small businesses located in ``economically
distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty
rates, or high unemployment.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently
127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many
of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not
brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple--
the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to
be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is
combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a
qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear:
very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or
impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the
requirements of the HUBZone program.
As I mentioned, one of these HUBZones is located at the former
Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed
in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left,
Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, lost more than 2400 military and
civilian personnel. These two towns have a combined population of just
22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic
impact on them. Because so few people actually live within the
boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide
the help they need, and that we had hoped for.
My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related
HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is
located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total
population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of
potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the
HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military
installations closed through the BRAC process.
The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of
expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In December, the ADC
wrote to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking
Member McCain, noting how important it is that ``Congress restore its
intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses
to help build and strengthen their local economies.''
Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority, or ``MRRA,'' which oversees the redevelopment
of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, has also urged Congress to
modify the HUBZone program. In a letter to me last month, Steve
explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed
to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located
within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize
the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by
Congress.''
This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an
entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former
Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as
``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it
impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status.
I ask my collegues to consider the legislation we are offering today
to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military
installation closed through the BRAC process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Association of
Defense Communities,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2012.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McCain: The
Association of Defense Communities (ADC) admires your
longstanding support of current and former military
communities. ADC, the leading organization representing those
communities, always appreciates the opportunity to share
information with you and your staff that may help strengthen
communities with active installations and those that continue
to redevelop following base closure or realignment.
Communities that have been impacted by Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) often face severe economic distress for years,
especially during times of national economic difficulty. To
assist in these communities' recovery, Congress authorized in
the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 that BRAC-
impacted communities would receive Small Business
Administration HUBZone certification, a federal initiative
that further helps small businesses in disadvantaged areas to
compete for federal contracts. The designation gives small
businesses relocating to closed military installation areas
equal footing with businesses in other disadvantaged areas
that receive the designation because of their location in
under-utilized census tracts.
While the intent of Congress was to provide the HUBZone
designation to help closed military installations attract
small businesses, one aspect of the HUBZone program actually
works against these redevelopment areas. To maintain HUBZone
status, 35 percent of a business' employees must also live in
a HUBZone area. Because a military installation's HUBZone
area encompasses only the base itself, many closed military
installations do not have a substantial number of HUBZone-
certified residential areas from which to draw sufficient
future employees for the businesses desiring to locate on
those properties. Thus, it is often impossible for a business
to qualify for HUBZone status and compete fairly against
other small businesses.
Many defense community leaders are hopeful this issue can
be resolved without additional spending, creation of a new
government program or a change in government contracting
goals. Senator Susan Collins is also working to address this
issue during the final stages of the FY 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act. We look forward to sharing further
information with your office and hers to help explain why it
is important to defense communities that Congress restore its
intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small
businesses to help build and strengthen their local
economies.
As always, ADC appreciate your service and support and
hopes you will contact us if we may be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Murdock,
President, Association of
Defense Communities.
____
Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority,
Brunswick, ME, December 11, 2012.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I represent the Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority, which is charged with redeveloping
the former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine that closed in
2011 and is now known as Brunswick Landing.
We seek your assistance in modifying the current federal
program related to SBA HUBZones to make it a more effective
tool for businesses locating at Brunswick Landing. Over the
past several years, we have had several companies inquire
about the current HUBZone status of the former NAS Brunswick.
In fact, we are currently working with one company who is
willing to locate here and create upwards of 200 jobs, if we
are successful in getting the current HUBZone program for
closed military installations broadened.
[[Page S445]]
With the implementation of the latest 2005 BRAC round, a
number of military installations have been closed across the
country resulting in severe economic distress for those
communities and States that have realized these closures.
Redeveloping these BRAC'd properties proved quite difficult
in good economic times, and now it is made even more
difficult with the national and State economic recession we
are experiencing.
While it would seem that the HUBZone designation for a
closed military installation would be an aid to its
redevelopment efforts, the 35% residency rule in the existing
law actually makes the program not a very effective
redevelopment tool for these properties at all. With the
exception of closed military installations, most of the
HUBZones in the Country are census tract based. Under current
law, only the closed military base itself (i.e., the
geographic area which used to be the former base) is
designated as a HUBZone, which is a much smaller area than
the census tract basis. Furthermore, many closed military
installations do not have a substantial amount of residential
areas from which to draw sufficient future employees (35%)
for the businesses desiring to locate on those properties.
In addition the above, the Small Business Act established a
five year time-frame for the duration of the HUBZone from the
actual date of base closure. This is of particular concern
given that the actual transfer of properties from the
military services to the base closure communities often
occurs many years following closure. Thus, these properties
are not available for business development until actually
transferred.
The net effect is that eligible HUB businesses seeking new
or expanded opportunities on closed installations cannot meet
these requirements and thus are not able to realize the
HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by
Congress. This issue exacerbates the difficulties for us and
other similar communities to overcome the devastating
economic effects of base closures.
In order to make the BRAC HUBZone designation an effective
economic development tool for Brunswick Landing, as well as
all the other closed installations across the country, the
attached amendment language to the existing law is
recommended. It should be noted that these recommendations do
not create a new program, require additional government
spending, or increase federal contracting goals.
Thank you for your service to our Country and the State of
Maine and your thoughtful consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Steven H. Levesque,
Executive Director.
____
Heather D. Blease,
Freeport, ME, December 12, 2012.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I have established a new contact
center business that focuses on providing service to the
federal government. A key strategy for our success hinges
upon the establishment of my business as a HUBZone certified
entity.
As a native of Brunswick, Maine, I am keenly interested in
locating my business at the former Brunswick Naval Air
Station, now called Brunswick Landing. As a BRAC facility,
the SBA rules limit the boundary of the HUBZone
geographically to base property which has very few housing
units.
In order to achieve HUBZone certification, 35% of my
employees need to reside within the HUBZone.
As the law is written, I cannot locate at Brunswick Landing
and hope to achieve HUBZone status. The BRAC HUBZone law is
flawed as written. Our Congress attempted to create an
economic development vehicle to help communities recover from
base closures, but unless the law is tweaked, the HUBZone
designation is meaningless.
Please help modify the existing definition for BRAC
HUBZones by broadening the boundary of the HUBZone for closed
military installations to include the surrounding community.
In the case of my company, it provides me with HUBZone
employees to put to work so I can meet the HUBZone
certification requirements.
If the law is changed, I will locate my business at
Brunswick Landing and provide hundreds of jobs to the
economically depressed area. Otherwise, I will need to seek
out other alternatives.
Thank you for your service to our country, the State of
Maine and your interest in helping small businesses thrive.
With greatest respect,
Heather D. Blease,
CEO, Savi Systems, LLC.
____________________