Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1013-S1030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 400. A bill to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
to include the Corps of Engineers as a Federal land management agency,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, today Senator Merkley and I are
introducing the Corps of Engineers Recreation Improvement Act. This
legislation enables the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reinvest
recreation fees to improve facilities where the funds are collected.
Our bill creates an incentive for the Corps to maintain good facilities
and provide quality recreational opportunities on our public lands. The
Corps currently collects recreation fees at many sites. This
legislation would not change the way the Corps determines use fee
rates. Existing law provides that users of specialized sites,
facilities, equipment, or services provided by Federal expense shall be
assessed fair and equitable fees. Section 210 of the Flood Control Act
of 1968 also provides that no entrance fees shall be charged by the
Corps. Our bill is not intended to and does not make any changes in
that regard.
In Arkansas, recreation on our public Corps-operated lands is an
important driver of economic activity, job opportunities, and tourism.
In fiscal year 2012, over $4.2 million in revenue was collected at
Corps recreation sites in Arkansas. When citizens spend money at Corps
recreation sites in Arkansas, Oregon, or other States, many of them
expect that their money will be invested on-site to improve facilities
and create recreation opportunities. Our bill would ensure those
expectations are met.
The Corps of Engineers Recreation Improvement Act would also enable
the Corps to participate in the interagency America the Beautiful Pass
program to allow customers an alternative payment option at sites where
entrance or amenity fees are charged. This includes the distribution
and sale of the passes and the retention of a portion of the revenue
for the sales of those passes. It would also allow the Corps to
distribute Military Passes. This will make it easier for our men and
women in uniform and their families to acquire passes. The Corps
currently honors these passes but the Corps is not allowed to
distribute the passes. Providing the ability for the Corps to offer
passes to customers is a commonsense solution that will encourage
continued use of Federal recreation sites.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 402. A bill to provide for the addition of certain real property
to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will
address a cumbersome and time consuming process in place under existing
law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will
streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribes of
Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is
simply not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be
made in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Merkley in this effort. I want to note that I introduced similar
legislation last Congress that was stalled at the Committee level due
to certain language in that bill--language that, at the time, we
thought was needed but found later was unnecessary and was preventing
the bill from moving forward. In the bill I am introducing today, I
took that language out to resolve the needs of the various stakeholders
and to ensure the bill has a chance to pass the Committee and be signed
into law.
The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the
Executive Order on November 9, 1855, was diminished and then eliminated
by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal
members and the tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz
community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954
stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition. Since then
the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This
legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust
process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome
chronic agency delays in processing applications. Instead of having two
cumbersome processes to bring each piece of former reservation land
back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into
trust and another to make it reservation land, my legislation would
allow the tribe to combine the process.
In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, and
the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon
restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place
into trust today is considered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

[[Page S1014]]

BIA, pursuant to off-reservation fee-to-trust procedures. Off-
reservation requests would mean that, according the regulations, the
``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification
of anticipated benefits. . .''
By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within
the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the
Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital
tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs--
for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes
the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion,
to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of
individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and
restoring some of the tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe
to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian
tribes within their reservations.
This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self-
determination for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and its
members. Due to failed Termination Era policies, Oregon Tribal
communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health
care, education, or crime on reservations. This bill would alleviate
much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the
bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which
mean a significant savings of time and resources.
The Siletz Tribe has approached all the involved counties and has
developed great communication and working relationships with them. This
legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial
partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local
counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas.
That is why I am introducing this legislation. The process remains
cumbersome and costly and I recognize the need for more action. It is
always great to see tribes and local counties work together to come up
with proactive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging
economic conditions.
I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and
tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They
represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.
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. 402

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE SILETZ TRIBE
OF THE STATE OF OREGON.

Section 7 of the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act (25
U.S.C. 711e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Treatment of Certain Property.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Title.--The Secretary may accept title to any
additional number of acres of real property located within
the boundaries of the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation
established by Executive Order dated November 9, 1855,
comprised of land within the political boundaries of Benton,
Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill Counties in
the State of Oregon, if that real property is conveyed or
otherwise transferred to the United States by or on behalf of
the tribe.
``(B) Trust.--Land to which title is accepted by the
Secretary under this paragraph shall be held in trust by the
United States for the benefit of the tribe.
``(2) Treatment as part of reservation.--All real property
that is taken into trust under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) be considered and evaluated as an on-reservation
acquisition under part 151.10 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations); and
``(B) become part of the reservation of the tribe.
``(3) Prohibition on gaming.--Any real property taken into
trust under paragraph (1) shall not be eligible, or used, for
any gaming activity carried out under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn,
Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Blumenthal):
S. 405. A bill to provide for media coverage of Federal court
proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in
the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all
federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and
radio broadcasts.
Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what
happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too
many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting
the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an
opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the
bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the
public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire
greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and
impartial justice for all.
For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed
cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact,
only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court
coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts;
sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining
fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules.
The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five
other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary
Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by
letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and
other forms of electronic media.
The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure
that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into
courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the
presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the
sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also
provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this
legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent
through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy
and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have
their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of
jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process
rights of each party.
We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal
Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore
understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure
that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the
safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have
allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we
join them.
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. 405

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 ``Sunshine in the Courtroom
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL APPELLATE AND DISTRICT COURTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means
the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In
proceedings in which more than 1 judge participates, the
presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so
participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals,
the senior active circuit judge so participating, except
that--
(A) in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court
of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of
the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and
(B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United
States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice
whenever the Chief Justice participates.
(2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term
``appellate court of the United States'' means any United
States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the
United States.
(b) Authority of Presiding Judge To Allow Media Coverage of
Court Proceedings.--
(1) Authority of appellate courts.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B),
the presiding judge of an

[[Page S1015]]

appellate court of the United States may, at the discretion
of that judge, permit the photographing, electronic
recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any
court proceeding over which that judge presides.
(B) Exception.--The presiding judge shall not permit any
action under subparagraph (A), if--
(i) in the case of a proceeding involving only the
presiding judge, that judge determines the action would
constitute a violation of the due process rights of any
party; or
(ii) in the case of a proceeding involving the
participation of more than 1 judge, a majority of the judges
participating determine that the action would constitute a
violation of the due process rights of any party.
(2) Authority of district courts.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
except as provided under clause (iii), the presiding judge of
a district court of the United States may, at the discretion
of that judge, permit the photographing, electronic
recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any
court proceeding over which that judge presides.
(ii) Obscuring of witnesses.--Except as provided under
clause (iii)--

(I) upon the request of any witness (other than a party) in
a trial proceeding, the court shall order the face and voice
of the witness to be disguised or otherwise obscured in such
manner as to render the witness unrecognizable to the
broadcast audience of the trial proceeding; and
(II) the presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall inform
each witness who is not a party that the witness has the
right to request the image and voice of that witness to be
obscured during the witness' testimony.

(iii) Exception.--The presiding judge shall not permit any
action under this subparagraph--

(I) if that judge determines the action would constitute a
violation of the due process rights of any party; and
(II) until the Judicial Conference of the United States
promulgates mandatory guidelines under paragraph (5).

(B) No media coverage of jurors.--The presiding judge shall
not permit the photographing, electronic recording,
broadcasting, or televising of any juror in a trial
proceeding, or of the jury selection process.
(C) Discretion of the judge.--The presiding judge shall
have the discretion to obscure the face and voice of an
individual, if good cause is shown that the photographing,
electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of the
individual would threaten--
(i) the safety of the individual;
(ii) the security of the court;
(iii) the integrity of future or ongoing law enforcement
operations; or
(iv) the interest of justice.
(D) Sunset of district court authority.--The authority
under this paragraph shall terminate 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Interlocutory appeals barred.--The decision of the
presiding judge under this subsection of whether or not to
permit, deny, or terminate the photographing, electronic
recording, broadcasting, or televising of a court proceeding
may not be challenged through an interlocutory appeal.
(4) Advisory guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the
United States may promulgate advisory guidelines to which a
presiding judge, at the discretion of that judge, may refer
in making decisions with respect to the management and
administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or
televising described under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(5) Mandatory guidelines.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of
the United States shall promulgate mandatory guidelines which
a presiding judge is required to follow for obscuring of
certain vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims, minor
victims, families of victims, cooperating witnesses,
undercover law enforcement officers or agents, witnesses
subject to section 3521 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to witness relocation and protection, or minors
under the age of 18 years. The guidelines shall include
procedures for determining, at the earliest practicable time
in any investigation or case, which witnesses should be
considered vulnerable under this section.
(6) Procedures.--In the interests of justice and fairness,
the presiding judge of the court in which media use is
desired has discretion to promulgate rules and disciplinary
measures for the courtroom use of any form of media or media
equipment and the acquisition or distribution of any of the
images or sounds obtained in the courtroom. The presiding
judge shall also have discretion to require written
acknowledgment of the rules by anyone individually or on
behalf of any entity before being allowed to acquire any
images or sounds from the courtroom.
(7) No broadcast of conferences between attorneys and
clients.--There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of
conferences which occur in a court proceeding between
attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel of a client,
between adverse counsel, or between counsel and the presiding
judge, if the conferences are not part of the official record
of the proceedings.
(8) Expenses.--A court may require that any accommodations
to effectuate this Act be made without public expense.
(9) Inherent authority.--Nothing in this Act shall limit
the inherent authority of a court to protect witnesses or
clear the courtroom to preserve the decorum and integrity of
the legal process or protect the safety of an individual.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 408. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week TIME Magazine published an
extensive piece that took a close look at the hidden costs within our
health care system and how the Medicare program, which is widely
disparaged these days, is effective in controlling costs.
We as a nation will spend $2.8 trillion this year on health care.
That is on average 27 percent more than what is spent per capita in
other developed countries.
According to the TIME article, many hospitals routinely overcharge
patients and reap profits at the expense of American families. As one
former hospital billing officer put it, ``hospitals all know the bills
are fiction.''
Too many families are put on the path to financial ruin because of
hospital bills.
Another thing the TIME piece highlighted was that Medicare is much
more effective at controlling costs than private sector providers,
whether non-profit or for-profit.
Because Medicare sets the prices it is willing to pay providers in
advance, patients with Medicare coverage are charged substantially less
than patients with private health insurance who have received the same
services.
In fact, projected Medicare spending over the 2011-2020 period is
more than $500 billion lower since late 2010 than CBO projected.
But we can do more. Every day, 10,000 Americans turn 65 and become
eligible for Medicare. In 11 years, Medicare's hospital insurance fund
will start paying out more in benefits than it takes in.
Meaningful reforms that lead to better health care at lower costs are
good for America's seniors--and for our entire health care system. And
that should start with changes to Part D.
Today, I am introducing with Senators Whitehouse and Jack Reed the
Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act.
Our bill would save taxpayer dollars by giving Medicare beneficiaries
the choice to participate in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan
run by Medicare, not private insurance companies.
Seniors want the ability to choose a Medicare-administered drug plan,
so let's give them this option.
In 2010, Americans spent approximately $260 billion on prescription
drugs. That figure is projected to double over the next decade.
However, patients in the United States spend 50 percent more than other
developed countries for the same drugs.
The average monthly price of cancer drugs has doubled over the past
10 years, from about $5,000 to more than $10,000.
Of the 12 new cancer drugs approved by the FDA last year, 11 were
priced above $100,000 a year.
About 77 percent of all cancers are diagnosed in persons 55 years of
age and older.
As these people enter the program, Medicare should be allowed to
control how much it pays for these prescription drugs.
While the Affordable Care Act does a lot to control costs in the
private insurance market, current law handcuffs Medicare beneficiaries
from obtaining competitive prices for their prescription drugs.
For all other Medicare programs, beneficiaries can choose whether to
receive benefits directly through Medicare or through a private
insurance plan.
The overwhelming majority of seniors choose the Medicare-run option
for their hospital and physician coverage.
Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to develop at least one
nationwide prescription drug plan.
Why? Because we should take advantage of the Federal Government's
purchasing power.
The Veterans Administration uses this type of negotiating authority
and has cut drug prices by as much as 50 percent for our Nation's
veterans.

[[Page S1016]]

Savings from negotiating on behalf of seniors in Medicare could be
used to further reduce costs in the program and ensure the program is
there for future generations.
America's health care system is burdening families and hindering our
ability to invest in the future.
The Affordable Care Act takes important steps to begin bringing down
costs in the private market and in Medicare, but there is more we can
do. This proposal is a simple and common sense option that should be
available for seniors.
Allowing Medicare to manage a prescription drug plan and negotiate
prices, taxpayers will save money and seniors will get high quality
drug coverage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 408

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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Savings and Choice Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PLAN OPTION.

(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act is amended by inserting after section
1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) the following new section:

``medicare operated prescription drug plan option

``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2014), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more Medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations in accordance with subsection
(b) with pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the purchase
cost of covered part D drugs for eligible part D individuals
who enroll in such a plan.
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a Medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs in a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan and shall encourage the use of more
affordable therapeutic equivalents to the extent such
practices do not override medical necessity as determined by
the prescribing physician. To the extent practicable and
consistent with the previous sentence, the Secretary shall
implement strategies similar to those used by other Federal
purchasers of prescription drugs, and other strategies,
including the use of a formulary and formulary incentives in
subsection (e), to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `Medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in 2014 and each succeeding year shall be
based on the average monthly per capita actuarial cost of
offering the Medicare operated prescription drug plan for the
year involved, including administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a Medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
``(e) Use of a Formulary and Formulary Incentives.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to the operation of a
Medicare operated prescription drug plan, the Secretary shall
establish and apply a formulary (and may include formulary
incentives described in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)) in accordance
with this subsection in order to--
``(A) increase patient safety;
``(B) increase appropriate use and reduce inappropriate use
of drugs; and
``(C) reward value.
``(2) Development of initial formulary.--
``(A) In general.--In selecting covered part D drugs for
inclusion in a formulary, the Secretary shall consider
clinical benefit and price.
``(B) Role of ahrq.--The Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality shall be responsible for
assessing the clinical benefit of covered part D drugs and
making recommendations to the Secretary regarding which drugs
should be included in the formulary. In conducting such
assessments and making such recommendations, the Director
shall--
``(i) consider safety concerns including those identified
by the Federal Food and Drug Administration;
``(ii) use available data and evaluations, with priority
given to randomized controlled trials, to examine clinical
effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, safety, and
enhanced compliance with a drug regimen;
``(iii) use the same classes of drugs developed by the
United States Pharmacopeia for this part;
``(iv) consider evaluations made by--

``(I) the Director under section 1013 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003;
``(II) other Federal entities, such as the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; and
``(III) other private and public entities, such as the Drug
Effectiveness Review Project and State plans under title XIX;
and

``(v) recommend to the Secretary--

``(I) those drugs in a class that provide a greater
clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or less
risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same class
that should be included in the formulary;
``(II) those drugs in a class that provide less clinical
benefit, including greater safety concerns or a greater risk
of side-effects, than another drug in the same class that
should be excluded from the formulary; and
``(III) drugs in a class with same or similar clinical
benefit for which it would be appropriate for the Secretary
to competitively bid (or negotiate) for placement on the
formulary.

``(C) Consideration of ahrq recommendations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, after taking into
consideration the recommendations under subparagraph (B)(v),
shall establish a formulary, and formulary incentives, to
encourage use of covered part D drugs that--

``(I) have a lower cost and provide a greater clinical
benefit than other drugs;
``(II) have a lower cost than other drugs with the same or
similar clinical benefit; and
``(III) drugs that have the same cost but provide greater
clinical benefit than other drugs.

``(ii) Formulary incentives.--The formulary incentives
under clause (i) may be in the form of one or more of the
following:

``(I) Tiered copayments.
``(II) Reference pricing.
``(III) Prior authorization.
``(IV) Step therapy.
``(V) Medication therapy management.
``(VI) Generic drug substitution.

``(iii) Flexibility.--In applying such formulary incentives
the Secretary may decide not to impose any cost-sharing for a
covered part D drug for which--

``(I) the elimination of cost sharing would be expected to
increase compliance with a drug regimen; and
``(II) compliance would be expected to produce savings
under part A or B or both.

``(3) Limitations on formulary.--In any formulary
established under this subsection, the formulary may not be
changed during a year, except--
``(A) to add a generic version of a covered part D drug
that entered the market;
``(B) to remove such a drug for which a safety problem is
found; and
``(C) to add a drug that the Secretary identifies as a drug
which treats a condition for which there has not previously
been a treatment option or for which a clear and significant
benefit has been demonstrated over other covered part D
drugs.
``(4) Adding drugs to the initial formulary.--
``(A) Use of advisory committee.--The Secretary shall
establish and appoint an advisory committee (in this
paragraph referred to as the `advisory committee')--
``(i) to review petitions from drug manufacturers, health
care provider organizations, patient groups, and other
entities for inclusion of a drug in, or other changes to,
such formulary; and
``(ii) to recommend any changes to the formulary
established under this subsection.
``(B) Composition.--The advisory committee shall be
composed of 9 members and shall include representatives of
physicians, pharmacists, and consumers and others with
expertise in evaluating prescription drugs. The Secretary
shall select members based on their knowledge of
pharmaceuticals and the Medicare population. Members shall be
deemed to be special Government employees for purposes of
applying the conflict of interest provisions under section
208 of title 18, United States Code, and no waiver of such
provisions for such a member shall be permitted.
``(C) Consultation.--The advisory committee shall consult,
as necessary, with physicians who are specialists in treating
the disease for which a drug is being considered.
``(D) Request for studies.--The advisory committee may
request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or an
academic or research institution to study and make a report
on a petition described in subparagraph (A)(i) in order to
assess--
``(i) clinical effectiveness;
``(ii) comparative effectiveness;
``(iii) safety; and

[[Page S1017]]

``(iv) enhanced compliance with a drug regimen.
``(E) Recommendations.--The advisory committee shall make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding--
``(i) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide a
greater clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or
less risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
be included in the formulary;
``(ii) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide
less clinical benefit, including greater safety concerns or a
greater risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
not be included in the formulary; and
``(iii) whether a covered part D drug has the same or
similar clinical benefit to a drug in the same class that is
currently included in the formulary and whether the drug
should be included in the formulary.
``(F) Limitations on review of manufacturer petitions.--The
advisory committee shall not review a petition of a drug
manufacturer under subparagraph (A)(i) with respect to a
covered part D drug unless the petition is accompanied by the
following:
``(i) Raw data from clinical trials on the safety and
effectiveness of the drug.
``(ii) Any data from clinical trials conducted using active
controls on the drug or drugs that are the current standard
of care.
``(iii) Any available data on comparative effectiveness of
the drug.
``(iv) Any other information the Secretary requires for the
advisory committee to complete its review.
``(G) Response to recommendations.--The Secretary shall
review the recommendations of the advisory committee and if
the Secretary accepts such recommendations the Secretary
shall modify the formulary established under this subsection
accordingly. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Secretary from adding to the formulary a drug for which the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or
the advisory committee has not made a recommendation.
``(H) Notice of changes.--The Secretary shall provide
timely notice to beneficiaries and health professionals about
changes to the formulary or formulary incentives.
``(f) Informing Beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall take
steps to inform beneficiaries about the availability of a
Medicare operated drug plan or plans including providing
information in the annual handbook distributed to all
beneficiaries and adding information to the official public
Medicare website related to prescription drug coverage
available through this part.
``(g) Application of All Other Requirements for
Prescription Drug Plans.--Except as specifically provided in
this section, any Medicare operated drug plan shall meet the
same requirements as apply to any other prescription drug
plan, including the requirements of section 1860D-4(b)(1)
relating to assuring pharmacy access.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--A Medicare operated prescription drug plan (as
defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered nationally
in accordance with section 1860D-11A.''.
(2)(A) Section 1860D-3 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Provisions Only Applicable in 2006 Through 2013.--The
provisions of this section shall only apply with respect to
2006 through 2013.''.
(B) Section 1860D-11(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
111(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) No authority for fallback plans after 2013.--A
fallback prescription drug plan shall not be available after
December 31, 2013.''.
(3) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a Medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(4) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of Medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(5) Section 1860D-41(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`Medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.

SEC. 3. IMPROVED APPEALS PROCESS UNDER THE MEDICARE OPERATED
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.

Section 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1305w-104(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Appeals process for medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a well-
defined process for appeals for denials of benefits under
this part under the Medicare operated prescription drug plan.
Such process shall be efficient, impose minimal
administrative burdens, and ensure the timely procurement of
non-formulary drugs or exemption from formulary incentives
when medically necessary. Medical necessity shall be based on
professional medical judgment, the medical condition of the
beneficiary, and other medical evidence. Such appeals process
shall include--
``(i) an initial review and determination made by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) for appeals denied during the initial review and
determination, the option of an external review and
determination by an independent entity selected by the
Secretary.
``(B) Consultation in development of process.--In
developing the appeals process under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall consult with consumer and patient groups, as
well as other key stakeholders to ensure the goals described
in subparagraph (A) are achieved.''.

Alliance for a Just Society,

February 28, 2013.
Reduce Pharmaceutical Prices--Do Not Cut Benefits

Dear President Obama and Senator/Representative: We have
noted with great concern that federal budget discussions have
included the possibility of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. We
wish to be clear: We strongly oppose such an approach and
believe it to be both unnecessary and a no-growth policy for
an economy that remains stagnant.
Medicare and Medicaid not only provide critical protections
against the economic deprivation caused by illness,
especially for older Americans; they also create jobs and
boost an economy that is slumbering. Cutting these programs
leads this country in the wrong direction.
We cannot continue to unravel these critical programs for
working families, the elderly, and the poor. If the Congress
is unable to move forward without some compromise that
reduces our national commitment to quality Medicare and
Medicaid programs, there is a source for reductions that will
not harm beneficiaries: the cost of prescription drugs.
The U.S. pays more for prescriptions than any nation in the
world. Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries pay more for
medicines than do our veterans and the clients of the
National Indian Health Service. Why do these differences in
cost persist? They do so because other countries, the VA, and
the IHS negotiate the prices for prescriptions, while
Medicare and Medicaid programs do not.
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research,
savings to the federal government over the next decade would
be as high as $541.3 billion. The saving to the states would
be as high as $72.7 billion, and beneficiaries would save
$112.4 billion. These amounts are far in excess of the demand
for expenditure reductions being suggested by the most
strident deficit reduction advocates.
We are more than 275 national and state organizations, and
we are opposed to cutting health care benefits for the
elderly and the poor. However, saving money by negotiating
drug prices would be beneficial to the entire health care
system, in addition to saving money for the federal
government and the states. We urge you to pursue this policy
as a major part of efforts to reduce health care costs.
Sincerely,

National

9to5, AFL-CIO, AFSCME (American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees), Alliance for a Just Society,
Alliance for Retired Americans, Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations, Campaign for America's
Future, Campaign for Community Change, Center for Popular
Democracy, Coalition on Human Needs, Community Action
Partnership, Community Organizations in Action, Grassroots
Policy Project, HCAN (Health Care for America Now!),
Institute for Policy Studies, Break the Chain Campaign, Jobs
With Justice, Leadership Center for Common Good, National
Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association.
National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug
Prices--20 signers (see attached letter): Rep. Sharon Engle
Treat (ME), Rep. Nickie Antonia (OH), Rep. Sheryl Briggs
(ME), Sen. Capri Cafaro (OH), Rep. Michael Foley (OH), Sen.
Dede Feldman (NM), Assemblyperson Richard N. Gottfried (NY),
Sen. Jack Hatch (IO), Sen. Karen Keiser (WA), Sen. Sue Malek
(MT), Sen. Kevin Mullin (VT), Rep. Don Perdue (WV), Rep.
Elizabeth B. Ritter (CT), Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (NH), Rep.
Linda Sanborn (ME), Rep. Shay Shual-Berke (MD), Sen. Michael
J. Skindell (OH), Rep. Peter Stuckey (ME), Rep. Roy Takumi
(HI), Rep. Joan Welsh (ME).
National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National
Health Law Program, National Korean American Service &
Education Consortium, National People's Action, National
Women's Health Network, New Bottom Line, PICO National
Network,

[[Page S1018]]

Progressive Democrats of America, Racial and Ethnic Health
Disparities Coalition, Raising Women's Voices for the Health
Care We Need, Rights to the City, Service Employees
International Union, Social Security Works, UAW (United Auto
Workers), Universal Health Care Action Network, USAction,
Working America, AFL-CIO, Working Families Party.

Alabama

Federation Of Child Care Centers of Alabama.

Arkansas

Arkansas Community Organizations.

California

9to5 California, Alliance of Californians for Community
Empowerment, Center for Third World Organizing, People
Organized for Westside Renewal, PICO California, San Diego
Organizing Project, California Childcare Coordinators
Association, California PIRG, Children's Defense Fund--
California, Community Health Council, Elsdon, Inc.,
Greenlining Institute, Molina Healthcare of California,
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter.

Colorado

9to5 Colorado, Colorado Progressive Coalition, Colorado
Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights,
Together Colorado.

Connecticut

Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

Florida

Central Florida Jobs with Justice, Community Business
Association, Florida CHAIN, Florida Chinese Federation,
Florida Civic Rights Association--Asian American Affairs,
Florida Coalition on Black Civic Participation (FCBCP),
Florida Consumer Action Network, Florida Consumer Action
Network Foundation, Florida Institute for Reform &
Empowerment, Florida New Majority, Florida Watch Action,
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement of Central
Florida (LCLAA of CF), National Congress of Black Women,
Organization of Chinese Americans--South Florida Chapter,
Organize Now, South Florida Jobs with Justice, United Chinese
Association of Florida.

Georgia

9to5 Atlanta, Georgia Rural Urban Summit.

Hawaii

Faith Action for Community Equity.

Idaho

Idaho Community Action Network, Idaho Main Street Alliance,
Indian People's Action, United Action for Idaho, United
Vision for Idaho.

Illinois

AFSCME Council 31, Chicago Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,
Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition of Labor Union Women
(CLUW), Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans (IARA),
Illinois Indiana Regional Organizing Network, Jane Addams
Senior Caucus, Lakeview Action Coalition, Northside
P.O.W.E.R., Public Action Foundation.

Indiana

Northwest Indiana Federation of Interfaith Organizations.

Iowa

Iowa Citizen Action Network, Iowa Citizen Action Network
Foundation, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa
Main Street Alliance.

Louisiana

Micah Project--New Orleans, PICO Louisiana.

Maine

Consumers for Affordable Healthcare, Maine Equal Justice
Partners, Maine People's Alliance, Maine People's Resource
Center, Maine Small Business Coalition, MSEA-SEIU Local
1989, Prescription Policy Choices.

Maryland

Maryland Communities United.

Massachusetts

Disability Policy Consortium.

Michigan

Harriet Tubman Center--Detroit, Metropolitan Coalition of
Congregations, Metro Detroit, Michigan Citizen Action,
Michigan Citizen Education Fund, Michigan Organizing
Collaborative.

Minnesota

AFSCME Council 5, CWA Minnesota State Council, Health Care
for All--Minnesota, ISAIAH, Jewish Community Action,
Minnesota AFL--CIO, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy,
Moveon.org Twin Cities Council, Physicians for a National
Health Plan--Minnesota, SEIU Local 284, SEIU Minnesota State
Council, Take Action Minnesota, UFCW Local 1189, Universal
Health Care Action Network--Minnesota.

Missouri

Communities Creating Opportunity, GRO (Grass Roots
Organizing), Metropolitan Congregations United, Missouri
Progressive Vote Coalition, Missouri Citizen Education Fund,
Missouri Jobs with Justice, Missourians Organizing for
Change, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment,
Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Progress Missouri.

Montana

AFSCME Council 9, Big Sky CLC--Helena, Greater Yellowstone
CLC--Billings, Indian People's Action, MEA-MFT, Missoula Area
CLC, Montana Alliance for Retired Americans, Montana
Organizing Project, Montana Small Business Alliance, MT AFL-
CIO State Federation, MT-HCAN, SEIU Healthcare 775 NW,
Southcentral Montana CLC--Bozeman, Southwestern Montana CLC--
Butte.

Nebraska

Nebraska Urban Indian Health Clinic.

Nevada

Dream Big Las Vegas, Nevada Immigration Coalition, PLAN
Action, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Uniting
Communities of Nevada.

New Hampshire

Granite State Organizing Project, New Hampshire Citizens
Alliance, New Hampshire Citizens Alliance for Action.

New Jersey

New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Citizen Action
Education Fund, PICO New Jersey, New Jersey Communities
United.

New Mexico

Organizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLE).

New York

Center for Independence of the Disabled--NY, Citizen Action
of New York and Public Policy and Education Fund, Community
Service Society of New York, Health Care for All New York,
Institute of Puerto Rican/Hispanic Elderly Inc. Make the Road
New York, Medicaid Matters New York, Metro New York Health
Care for All Campaign, New York Communities for Change, New
Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, Professional Staff
Congress at CUNY Local 2334--AFT, Public Policy and Education
Fund of New York, Small Business United, Syracuse United
Neighbor.

North Carolina

Action North Carolina, Disability Rights NC, North Carolina
Fair Share, North Carolina Justice Center, Unifour OneStop
Collaborative.

Ohio

Communities United for Action, Contact Center, Fair Share
Research and Education Fund, Mahoning Valley Organizing
Collaborative, Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans
Educational Fund, Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Progress
Ohio, Progressive Democrats of America--Ohio Chapter, The
People's Empowerment Coalition of Ohio, Toledo Area Jobs with
Justice & Interfaith Worker Justice Coalition, UHCAN Ohio.

Oregon

Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, Center for
Intercultural Organizing, Fair Share Research and Education
Fund, Main Street Alliance of Oregon, Oregon Action, Oregon
Women's Action for New Directions, Rural Organizing Project,
Portland Jobs with Justice, Urban League.

Pennsylvania

ACHIEVA, ACTION United, Be Well! Pittsburgh, Beaver County
NOW, Consumer Health Coalition, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of
Pennsylvania, Maternity Care Coalition, New Voices
Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Justice,
Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, Philadelphia
Unemployment Project, Women's Law Project.

Rhode Island

Ocean State Action, Ocean State Action Fund.

Tennessee

Tennessee Citizen Action, Tennessee Citizen Action
Alliance.

Virginia

SEIU Virginia 512, Virginia AFL-CIO, Virginia New Majority,
Virginia Organizing.

Washington

AFGE Local 3937, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic
Empowerment, FUSE Washington, Health Care for All Washington,
Main Street Alliance of Washington, OneAmerica, Physicians
for a National Health Program--Western Washington, Puget
Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, SEIU Healthcare
1199NW, SEIU Local 6, SEIU Local 775, SEIU Healthcare 775NW,
Spokane Peace and Justice Action League, Washington CAN!
Education and Research Fund, Washington CARE Campaign,
Washington Community Action Network Education, Washington
Fair Trade Coalition, Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO,
Working Washington.

West Virginia

West Virginia Citizen Action Group, West Virginia Citizen
Action Education Fund.

Wisconsin

9to5 Wisconsin, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Citizen Action
of Wisconsin Education Fund, Coalition of Wisconsin Aging
Groups, M&S Clinical Services Assessment Center, Milwaukee
Teachers Education Association (NEA), SEIU Healthcare
Wisconsin, SOPHIA--Stewards of Prophetic, Hopeful,
Intentional Action (Gamaliel), Wisconsin Federation of Nurses
and Health Professionals (AFT).
____

National Committee To Preserve

Social Security & Medicare,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2013.
Hon. Dick Durbin,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Janice Schakowsky,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Schakowsky: On
behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and

[[Page S1019]]

Medicare, I am writing to express our support for the
Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act. We applaud
this effort because it would improve the Medicare program for
beneficiaries and reduce federal spending on prescriptions
drugs.
We understand that your legislation would create one or
more Medicare-administered drug plans with uniform premiums,
providing seniors with the opportunity to purchase drugs
directly through the Medicare program. In addition, your
legislation would require the federal government to use its
purchasing power to negotiate lower prices on prescription
drugs for beneficiaries who enroll in the Medicare-
administered plan. The Department of Veterans Affairs and
many state governments are able to deliver lower drug prices
because of price negotiation, and we believe that the federal
government should be able to receive the best price available
for Medicare prescription drugs. Finally, we appreciate that
your legislation establishes an advisory committee to assess
a public formulary and streamlines the Medicare Part D
appeals process, which will help all beneficiaries.
Thank you for your continued leadership on Medicare,
particularly for identifying ways to reduce Medicare spending
without shifting costs to beneficiaries. We look forward to
working with you to enact this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Max Richtman,
President and CEO.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, and Mr.
Moran):
S. 411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
and modify the railroad track maintenance credit; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleagues
Senators, Crapo, Wyden, and Moran in introducing the Short Line
Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2013, legislation to
extend for 3 years the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax
credit.
In the 112th Congress, I introduced a 6-year extension of this
credit. Despite the often contentious atmosphere of the 112th Congress,
during which my colleagues found little they could agree on, the short
line rail credit was a bipartisan success story, with my legislation
attracting more than 50 bipartisan cosponsors.
``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible
for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by
large, trans-continental railroads. Supporting small railroads allows
the communities surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and
create jobs. The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in
communities across America.
This credit has real impact for the people of my state. West Virginia
is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the country. Since
the credit was enacted, it is estimated 750,000 railroad ties have been
purchased above what would have otherwise been purchased with no
incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly into jobs. This
credit does not create just West Virginia jobs though. The ties,
spikes, and rail this credit helps fund are almost entirely American
made.
Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This
credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private
sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation
and improvements. Unfortunately, it is now scheduled to expire at the
end of 2013.
We were unable to enact a full 6-year extension of this important tax
credit last Congress, but I was pleased that this credit was extended
through the end of 2013 as part of the December 31st fiscal cliff deal.
This Congress I want to do more. This credit, and the short line
railroads that serve all of our constituents, deserve a meaningful
extension. If this credit is allowed to expire at the end of the year,
private-sector investments in infrastructure in our communities will
fall by hundreds of millions of dollars.
This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2016, providing the
important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private-
sector transportation infrastructure investment. Over 50 members of
this body sponsored legislation in the last Congress extending this
credit and I hope there will be similar support again this year. I ask
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
______

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Portman, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 413. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to include human trafficking as a part 1 violent crime for
purposes of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program;
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. 413

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 ``Human Trafficking Reporting
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery.
(2) According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 ``severe forms of trafficking in persons'' means--
(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is
induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person
induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age;
or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision,
or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the
use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of
subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage,
or slavery.
(3) There is an acute need for better data collection of
incidents of human trafficking across the United States in
order to effectively combat severe forms of trafficking in
persons.
(4) The State Department's 2012 Trafficking in Persons
report found that--
(A) the United States is a ``source, transit and
destination country for men, women, and children, subjected
to forced labor, debt bondage, domestic servitude and sex
trafficking,''; and
(B) the United States needs to ``improve data collection on
human trafficking cases at the federal, state and local
levels''.
(5) The International Organization for Migration has
reported that in order to effectively combat human
trafficking there must be reliable and standardized data,
however, the following barriers for data collection exist:
(A) The illicit and underground nature of human
trafficking.
(B) The reluctance of victims to share information with
authorities.
(C) Insufficient human trafficking data collection and
research efforts by governments world-wide.
(6) A 2009 report to the Department of Health and Human
Services entitled Human Trafficking Into and Within the
United States: A Review of the Literature found that ``the
data and methodologies for estimating the prevalence of human
trafficking globally and nationally are not well developed,
and therefore estimates have varied widely and changed
significantly over time''.
(7) The Federal Bureau of Investigation compiles national
crime statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
(8) Under current law, State and local governments
receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants are
required to share data on part 1 violent crimes with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the Uniform
Crime Reporting Program.
(9) The addition of severe forms of trafficking in persons
to the definition of part 1 violent crimes will ensure that
statistics on this heinous crime will be compiled and
available through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Uniform Crime Report.

SEC. 3. HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO BE INCLUDED IN PART 1 VIOLENT
CRIMES FOR PURPOSES OF BYRNE GRANTS.

Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(i) Part 1 Violent Crimes To Include Human Trafficking.--
For purposes of this section, the term `part 1 violent
crimes' shall include severe forms of trafficking in persons,
as defined in section 103(8) of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(8)).''.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Gillibrand, and
Mr. Pryor):
S. 415. A bill to clarify the collateral requirement for certain
loans under section 7(d) of the Small Business Act, to address
assistance to out-of-State small business concerns, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an
issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana:
Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep
an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is
following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes

[[Page S1020]]

Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008.
Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and
environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and
more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal
disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is
one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes,
other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example,
the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and
wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of
our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will
strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was
struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind,
we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has
the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a
disaster.
In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better
tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the
Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my
colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for
helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the
legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's
disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds
off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is
responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of
disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the
most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they
could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for
the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA
Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers,
SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in
Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a
limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane
Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster
area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic
disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying
out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is
legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it
reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were
legitimate and there are funds available to do so.
In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would
clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that
SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if
those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The
bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or
greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is
a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that
this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of
collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank
my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve
upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that
I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct
result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last
year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that
came out of these productive discussions.
I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the
Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009
that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A
similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that
Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement
under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of
389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009
by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress,
this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62-
32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations
Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into
law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that
this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and
has previously passed both chambers of Congress.
Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to
business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans.
After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has
consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for
SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons
behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring
business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller
SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is
understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million.
However, business owners complained about this requirement being
instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their
frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost
everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business.
SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home
as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets
available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need
for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and
minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to
secure loans.
Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before
my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of
collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and
my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its
credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA
does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current
practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business
demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines
borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral,
SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best
available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over
$14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000.
SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I
stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral.
Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in
practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence
worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when
there are other assets available for SBA.
This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending
practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this
legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a
significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans.
Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on
the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA
disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a
business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make
immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that
they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that
the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if
businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets
are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still
apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking
smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans
without significant burdens on their personal property. For the
business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed
clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding
to disasters.
To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of
a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing
and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA
should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal

[[Page S1021]]

residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating
in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not
just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are
also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal
homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business
can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other
assets.
As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision
that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of
collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce
the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes
will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these
legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it
is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand
they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current
lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable
collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business
inventory; and furniture and fixtures.
Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the
Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to
help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision
authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide
assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared
disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered
to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development
efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are
the university based resource partners that provide counseling and
training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From
2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they
offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462
per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services
helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical
following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help
impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance
programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For
that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC
counselors on the ground in disaster areas.
For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana
were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread
damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the
other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of
disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from
providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area.
In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy
but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from
helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help
recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their
operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will
respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale,
catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant
difference for impacted small businesses.
In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent
testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business
Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small
Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic
relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they
currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted
that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the
SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New
Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with
my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for
recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many
times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials,
information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also
later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster,
staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of
assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences
gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many
other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the
needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these
current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this
legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in
his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing
SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the
purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little
different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however,
I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these
partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there
post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened
from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit
from these partnerships with their counterparts.
Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been
passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during
past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of
bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was
approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business
Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was
subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August
3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before
the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this
provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229,
the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted
into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the
112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on
July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the
``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican
colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all
voted in support of the amendment. Although it was not ultimately
enacted into law, the provision was subsequently included in separate
pieces of legislation introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself.
This provision was included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS
Act of 2012'' that I introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433
of S. 3572, the ``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small
Business Act of 2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9,
2012.
Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague
Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses
past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post-
disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides
clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out-
of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic
location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not
left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the
SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster
area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these
expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to
do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on
behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him
to enact this provision into law.
In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will
greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the
major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next,
this approach has already received support from the following groups
from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development
Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest
Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic
Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic

[[Page S1022]]

Partnership, and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that
in mind, the Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
If we can make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a
disaster tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here
to do: make good laws.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 415

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Disaster
Reform Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS.

Section 7(d)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(d)(6)) is amended by inserting after ``which are made
under paragraph (1) of subsection (b)'' the following: ``:
Provided further, That the Administrator, in obtaining the
best available collateral for a loan of not more than
$200,000 under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b)
relating to damage to or destruction of the property of, or
economic injury to, a small business concern, shall not
require the owner of the small business concern to use the
primary residence of the owner as collateral if the
Administrator determines that the owner has other assets with
a value equal to or greater than the amount of the loan that
could be used as collateral for the loan: Provided further,
That nothing in the preceding proviso may be construed to
reduce the amount of collateral required by the Administrator
in connection with a loan described in the preceding proviso
or to modify the standards used to evaluate the quality
(rather than the type) of such collateral''.

SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO OUT-OF-STATE SMALL BUSINESSES.

Section 21(b)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(3) At the discretion'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Assistance to out-of-state small businesses.--
``(A) In general.--At the discretion''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Disaster recovery assistance.--
``(i) In general.--At the discretion of the Administrator,
the Administrator may authorize a small business development
center to provide assistance, as described in subsection (c),
to a small business concern located outside of the State,
without regard to geographic proximity, if the small business
concern is located in an area for which the President has
declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170), during the period of the declaration.
``(ii) Continuity of services.--A small business
development center that provides counselors to an area
described in clause (i) shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure continuity of services in any State in
which the small business development center otherwise
provides services.
``(iii) Access to disaster recovery facilities.--For
purposes of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, permit the personnel of a
small business development center to use any site or facility
designated by the Administrator for use to provide disaster
recovery assistance.''.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that, subject to the
availability of funds, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall, to the extent practicable,
ensure that a small business development center is
appropriately reimbursed for any legitimate expenses incurred
in carrying out activities under section 21(b)(3)(B) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(b)(3)(B)), as added by this
Act.
Association of Small Business

Development Centers,

Burke, VA, February 10, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: Thank you for giving the Association
of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) the opportunity
to comment on your proposed legislative amendments to the
disaster assistance provisions in the Small Business Act (15
USC 631 et seq.).
While Congress has taken a significant step in addressing
the resource issues following Sandy and other disasters there
are still restrictions in the SBDC assistance authority and
the US Small Business Administration's loan making authority
that could complicate future disaster recovery efforts. We
applaud your efforts to deal with those issues.
Under section 21(b)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 USC
648(b)(3)) SBDCs are limited in their ability to provide
services across state lines. This prevents SBDCs dealing with
disaster recovery, like New York and New Jersey, from being
able to draw upon the resources available in our nationwide
network of nearly 1,000 centers with over 4,500 business
advisors. It likewise prevents states with great experience
in disaster recovery assistance like Louisiana and Florida,
from providing assistance to their colleagues.
Your proposed legislation amends that SBDC geographic
service restriction for the purposes of providing disaster
support and assistance. Our Association wholeheartedly
endorses that change. Allowing SBDCs to share resources
across state lines or other boundaries for the purpose of
disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little
different from utilities sharing linemen. In addition, we
would like to note that this provision has been supported by
the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
twice in previous Congresses.
In addition, the ASBDC wishes to express its support for
your proposals to amend the collateral requirements in the
disaster loan program for loans under $200,000. SBDCs
routinely assist small business owners with their
applications for disaster loan assistance and have often
faced clients with qualms about some of those requirements.
We share a common goal of putting small business on the
road to recovery after disaster strikes and getting capital
flowing is a key factor in meeting that goal. To that end,
ASBDC supports your efforts to ease collateral requirements
and help improve the flow of disaster funds to small business
applicants. We believe your proposal to limit the use of
personal homes as collateral on smaller loans is consistent
with the need to get capital flowing to affected businesses
and ease the stress on these businesses. We also agree that
this change will not undermine the underwriting standards of
the disaster loan program.
Thank you again for kind attention and continuing support
of small business.
Sincerely,
C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe,
President/CEO, ASBDC.
____

International Economic

Development Council,

Washington, DC, February 13, 2013.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate.
Hon. James E. Risch,
Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu and Senator Risch: On behalf of the
International Economic Development Council (IEDC), please
accept our appreciation for this opportunity to provide
comments related to proposed changes to federal disaster
assistance programs offered by the United States Small
Business Administration (SBA). Your continuing support of
these critical programs is worthy of praise and we thank you
for your leadership.
IEDC has a strong history of supporting disaster planning
and recovery. Our organization, with a membership of over
4,000 dedicated professionals, responded to communities in
need following the 2005 hurricane season, the BP Gulf oil
spill and other disaster-related incidents by providing
economic development recovery assistance. We have continued
our work in this area through technical assistance projects
and partnerships with federal agencies and other non-
governmental organizations. Our profession is invested in
helping our country prepare for and respond to disasters,
much the same as you and your colleagues on the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship. To this end, we support
proposed changes that will allow SBA to more effectively
deliver disaster recovery assistance to local businesses in
need of federal aid.
Rebuilding the local economy must be a top priority
following a disaster, second only to saving lives and homes.
IEDC supports the targeted changing of the current collateral
requirements that state a business owner must place their
home up as collateral in order to secure an SBA disaster
business loan of $200,000 or less. In times of crisis,
affected business owners are understandably reluctant to
place their personal homes up as collateral in order to
obtain a much needed loan to rebuild their business.
Consequently, SBA loans put in place to help businesses
rebuild following a disaster go underutilized. As lawmakers,
you have a responsibility to protect the taxpayer, which is
why we understand the need for posting collateral of equal or
greater value to the amount of the loan. The proposed
targeted change that eliminates the specific requirement of
using a home as collateral to guarantee a loan of $200,000 or
less, and instead allowing business assets to act as
collateral, will promote greater utilization of the loans.
This is an idea we can all get behind; one that will lead to
greater, faster economic recovery.
When disaster strikes, we should do everything in our power
to bring the full resources of the federal government to bear
in the impacted community. This includes, most especially,
bringing in top experts who can immediately begin helping
businesses and local economies recover. The national network
of over 1,100 Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) could
be an excellent resource to stricken communities.
Unfortunately, current rules prevent SBDC's from assisting
their counterparts in other jurisdictions. For example, those
communities in the mid-Atlantic and New England impacted by
Sandy are not able to benefit from the enormous

[[Page S1023]]

amount of knowledge and experience in storm recovery held by
SBDCs in Florida and the Gulf region. Certainly, we can all
agree that disasters warrant an extraordinary response and
that response must include qualified expertise from all
corners of the federal government.
Forty to sixty percent of small businesses that close as a
result of a disaster do not reopen. This is an unacceptably
high number. We would not accept that level of loss in homes
and we cannot accept that level of loss in jobs; our
communities cannot sustain such losses and duty dictates we
make certain they don't have to. By enacting common sense
legislation, like that which is under consideration here, and
freeing the flow of capital and expertise, we are taking
concrete steps to give our small businesses and local
economies the greatest chance to recover.
IEDC is your partner in the work of job creation. We thank
you for your leadership in support of small business and
stand ready to offer our assistance in this and future
efforts.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Krutko,
Chairman, International Economic Development Council and
President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK.
____

St. Tammany

Economic Development Foundation,

Mandeville, LA, February 19, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: The St. Tammany Economic Development
Foundation thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendments to the disaster assistance provisions in
the Small Business Act (15 US 631 et seq.). As we learned
from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and most recently Isaac, the
sooner our small businesses are able to recover, the better
it is for the region, the state and the nation.
We fully endorse the proposed amendment to Section 1 of the
bill regarding collateral on business disaster loans. If
approved, no longer would small business owners have to use
their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA
disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets
are available of equal or greater value than the amount of
the loan. In times of crisis, affected business owners are
understandably reluctant to place their personal homes up as
collateral in order to obtain a much needed loan to rebuild
their business. Allowing business assets to act as collateral
will promote greater utilization of the loans; leading to
faster economic recovery.
Under Section 2 of the bill, Small Business Development
Centers (SBDCs) are limited in their ability to provide
services across state lines. This prevents SBDCs in affected
areas from being able to draw upon the resources available
from their colleagues nationwide. Louisiana SBDCs have great
experience in disaster recovery assistance and should not be
prevented from providing assistance to their colleagues
outside of Louisiana in the event of disaster. Therefore, we
fully support this provision.
We applaud your efforts to protect small businesses in the
wake of disasters and thank you for continuing to be a strong
advocate on their behalf. After all, small businesses are the
lifeblood of our great nation.
Sincerely,
Brenda Bertus,
Executive Director, St. Tammany
Economic Development Foundation.
____

North Louisiana

economic partnership,

February 26, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu, The North Louisiana Economic
Partnership thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed changes to the disaster assistance programs offered
by the United States Small Business Administration. The
proposed amendments to the Small Business Act (15 USC 631 et
seq.) will greatly enhance federal assistance to small
businesses recovering from disasters. NLEP applauds your
efforts to support our small businesses which make up the
backbone of the American economy.
As a regional economic development organization promoting
North Louisiana, NLEP often works with businesses impacted by
natural or manmade disasters. The impact of these disasters
can temporarily or permanently shut down small businesses,
leaving both small business owners and their employees
without a livelihood. The SBA disaster programs offer a real
lifeline to these impacted businesses which have very few
options available to them. The proposed amendment to Section
1 of the bill regarding collateral for business disaster
loans would allow more small businesses to utilize the
disaster loan programs. If approved, small business owners
would no longer have to use their primary residence as
collateral toward a SBA disaster business loan of less than
$200,000, if other assets are available. During a widespread
disaster, the primary residence of business owners may also
be impacted and requiring them to use their home as
collateral would create an onerous burden and/or be
financially unfeasible. Eliminating this collateral
requirement opens up assistance to those businesses most
impacted by disaster, speeding recovery for businesses and a
region's economy.
The second proposed change to Section 2 of the Small
Business Act would allow Small Business Development Centers
(SBDCs) to provide technical assistance to impacted small
businesses beyond the current 250 mile limitation. The
Louisiana Small Business Development Centers (LSBDCs) have
successfully worked with countless small businesses
devastated by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike, and
most recently the BP oil spill. The experience and expertise
that the LSBDC could have shared with the SBDCs in the New
York and New Jersey area would have enhanced their
capabilities to cope with Superstorm Sandy. In times of
disaster, it is essential to collaborate and pool resources
in order to speed up delivery of much needed assistance.
For these reasons, the North Louisiana Economic Partnership
fully endorses the proposed amendments to the current SBA
legislation that would open up, enhance and efficiently
deliver disaster assistance to small businesses.
Sincerely,

Scott Martinez

President, North Louisiana
Economic Partnership.
____

Bay Area Houston,

Economic Partnership,

Houston, TX, February 13, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: The Texas economy has outperformed
the rest of the country not only over the long term but also
during the recent recession. Our pro-business climate has
been a huge contributing factor to that, and so have Texas'
small businesses. From 2002-2009, small businesses of fewer
than 10 employees fueled the Texas employment engine, adding
nearly 800,000 new jobs. When disaster strikes the Gulf
Coast, as it did with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and
Ike, our small businesses are hit hard. The sooner they are
able to recover the better it is for the region, the state,
and the nation.
This is why I am writing to support your proposed
legislative amendments to the disaster assistance provisions
in the Small Business Act (15 USC 631 et seq). Section 1 of
the bill addresses collateral on business disaster loans. If
approved, no longer would small business owners have to use
their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA
disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets
are available of equal or greater value than the amount of
the loan. This would certainly help to reduce anxiety on the
part of small business owners and their families who have
already experienced enough stress through damage to or total
destruction of their businesses.
Section 2 of the bill includes the provision that
authorizes the Small Business Administration to allow out-of-
state small business development centers to provide
assistance in presidentially-declared disaster areas, which
is currently not allowed. When Hurricane Ike devastated our
region in September 2008, we welcomed any and all kinds of
disaster relief. The northeast just experienced a similar
disaster with Hurricane Sandy. Utility crews from across the
nation responded quickly to each. State lines should never be
used to prevent aid from reaching disaster victims. The
majority of the membership of our organization is comprised
of small businesses. On their behalf, we fully endorse this
provision.
Thank you for working to keep America's small businesses
strong and helping them to recover from major storms that we
know will strike again.
Sincerely,

Bob Mitchell,

President, Bay Area Houston
Economic Partnership.
____

SWLA Economic

Development Alliance,

Lake Charles, LA, February 25, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu, The Southwest Louisiana Economic
Development Alliance welcomes the opportunity to comment on
the proposed amendments to the disaster assistance provisions
in the Small Business Act (15 US 631 et seq.). As we learned
from Hurricanes Rita and Ike, the sooner our small businesses
are able to recover, the better it is for the region, the
state and the nation.
We fully endorse the proposed amendment to Section 1 of the
bill regarding collateral on business disaster loans. If
approved, no longer would small business owners have to use
their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA
disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets
are available of equal or greater value than the amount of
the loan. In times of crisis, affected business owners are
understandably reluctant to place their personal homes up as
collateral in order to obtain a much needed loan to rebuild
their business. Allowing business assets to act as collateral
will promote greater utilization of the loans; leading to
faster economic recovery.
Under Section 2 of the bill, Small Business Development
Centers (SBDCs) are limited in their ability to provide
service across state lines. This prevents SBDCs in affected
areas from being able to draw upon the resources available
from their colleagues nationwide. Louisiana SBDCs have great
experience in

[[Page S1024]]

disaster recovery assistance and should not be prevented from
providing assistance to their colleagues outside of Louisiana
in the event of disaster. Therefore, we fully support this
provision.
About 85% of the members of the Chamber SWLA are small
businesses. We applaud your efforts to protect small
businesses in the wake of disasters and thank you for
continuing to be a strong advocate on their behalf.
Sincerely,

George Swift,

President/CEO,
SWLA Economic Development Alliance.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal):
S. 418. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe
regulations regarding the collection and use of personal information
obtained by tracking the online activity of an individual, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Do-Not-Track
Online Act of 2013. This bill is a critical step towards furthering
consumer privacy. It empowers Americans to control their personal
information online and provides them with the ability to prevent online
companies from collecting and using that information for profit.
Do-not-track is a simple concept. It allows consumers, with a simple
click of the mouse, to tell every company that participates in the vast
online ecosystem, ``Do not collect information about me. I care about
my privacy. My personal information is not for sale. And I do not want
my information used in ways I do not expect or approve.'' Under this
bill, online companies would have to honor that user declaration or
face penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, or State
Attorneys General.
This bill is necessary because the privacy of Americans is
increasingly under assault as more and more of their daily lives are
conducted online. Whether it is a person at home searching for a new
job or home, a parent researching her sick child's symptoms and
treatments using a health application, or a teenager using her
smartphone while riding the subway, online companies are collecting
massive amounts of information, often without consumers' knowledge or
consent. A vast array of companies that consumers have never heard of
are surreptitiously collecting this information in numerous ways:
third-party advertising networks place ``cookies'' on computer web-
browsers to track the websites that consumers have visited; analytic
and marketing companies identify individual computers by recognizing
the unique configuration, or ``fingerprint,'' of web-browsers; and
software applications installed on mobile devices, colloquially known
as ``apps,'' collect, use, and share information about consumers'
precise locations, contact lists, photographs, and other personal
matters. All of this information can be combined and stored on computer
servers around the world and used for a variety of purposes, ranging
from website analytics to online behavioral advertising to the creation
of comprehensive dossiers by data brokers that build and sell personal
profiles about hundreds of millions of individual Americans.
My bill would empower consumers, if they so choose, to stem the tide.
It would give them the means to prohibit the collection of their
information from the start. Consumers would be able to tell companies
collecting their personal information that they want those collection
practices to stop. At the same time, the bill would preserve the
ability of those online companies to conduct their business and deliver
the content and services that consumers have come to expect and enjoy.
The bill would grant the FTC rulemaking authority to use its expertise
to protect the privacy interests of consumers while addressing the
legitimate needs of industry.
The key to this bill is its simplicity. For over a decade in the
Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, we have tried to determine
how online companies can provide clear and conspicuous notice to
consumers about their information practices and--once this notice has
been given--further determine how consumers can either opt-in or opt-
out of those information collection practices. Yet today, privacy
policies are still far too long, too complicated, and too full of
technical legalese for any reasonable consumer to read, let alone
understand. The failures of these notices are even clearer when placed
on the exploding number of mobile devices on which consumers have grown
to rely. My bill avoids this messy ``rabbit hole'' of policy
considerations and creates an easy mechanism that gives consumers the
opportunity to simply say ``no thank you'' to anyone and everyone
collecting their online information. Period.
Let me also say a few words about what this bill does not do. My bill
would not ``break the Internet,'' as I am sure we will hear from
opponents. The truth is that my bill makes every necessary
accommodation for online companies to continue providing content and
services to consumers. For instance, websites and applications would
still be able collect data to deliver the content and functionality
that consumers have requested, perform internal analytics, improve
performance, and prevent fraud. My bill would also allow online
companies to collect and maintain consumer information when it has been
voluntarily provided by the consumer. They could also collect data that
is truly anonymous. Finally, consumers could allow companies they trust
to collect and use their information by giving specific consent that
overrides a general do-not-track preference. But, when consumers say
that they do not want to be tracked, online companies would no longer
be allowed to ignore this request and collect and use this information
for any extraneous purpose. Moreover, these companies would be
obligated to immediately destroy or anonymize the information once it
is no longer needed to provide the service requested.
I think it is worth noting that since 2010, the FTC has called for a
do-not-track solution. The commission has stated that any effective do-
not-track system should be simple, easy to use, and persistent, and
that, if implemented, it should prevent the collection of consumers'
online data. The private sector has also taken notice and similarly
recognized the utility of do-not-track for its users. Nearly every
popular web browser now allows consumers to affirmatively declare a do-
not-track preference to websites. The problem is that online companies
have no legal obligation to honor this request and, in fact, many have
gone so far as to outright refuse to do so. In February 2012, industry
leaders stood at the White House and publicly declared their commitment
to honor do-not-track requests from web browsers. Yet since that time,
industry has failed to live up to those commitments. The online
advertising industry has articulated huge exemptions to its pledge to
limit the collection of information--exceptions that undermine the very
self-regulatory programs the industry has promoted as effective. This
industry has emphasized consumer choice yet has made statements
publicly refusing to honor new do-not-track browser features. My bill
would put an end to this gamesmanship and nonsense.
My bill is only part of the ongoing discussion on consumer privacy in
Congress. It is simple, yet powerful. It allows consumers, if they
choose, and I should emphasize that many will not make such a choice,
to stop the mind-boggling number of online companies that are
collecting vast amounts of their information. It gives consumers an
easy-to-use tool that will implement their choices effectively in a
complex, rapidly-changing online world. It prohibits those lurking in
the cyber-shadows from profiting off of the personal, private
information of ordinary Americans. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this and other privacy legislative efforts in the
Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor.
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. 418

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 ``Do-Not-Track Online Act of
2013''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO ``DO-NOT-TRACK'' MECHANISMS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act,

[[Page S1025]]

the Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate--
(1) regulations that establish standards for the
implementation of a mechanism by which an individual can
simply and easily indicate whether the individual prefers to
have personal information collected by providers of online
services, including by providers of mobile applications and
services; and
(2) rules that prohibit, except as provided in subsection
(b), such providers from collecting personal information on
individuals who have expressed, via a mechanism that meets
the standards promulgated under paragraph (1), a preference
not to have such information collected.
(b) Exception.--The rules promulgated under paragraph (2)
of subsection (a) shall allow for the collection and use of
personal information on an individual described in such
paragraph, notwithstanding the expressed preference of the
individual via a mechanism that meets the standards
promulgated under paragraph (1) of such subsection, to the
extent--
(1) necessary to provide a service requested by the
individual, including with respect to such service, basic
functionality and effectiveness, so long as such information
is anonymized or deleted upon the provision of such service;
or
(2) the individual--
(A) receives clear, conspicuous, and accurate notice on the
collection and use of such information; and
(B) affirmatively consents to such collection and use.
(c) Factors.--In promulgating standards and rules under
subsection (a), the Federal Trade Commission shall consider
and take into account the following:
(1) The appropriate scope of such standards and rules,
including the conduct to which such rules shall apply and the
persons required to comply with such rules.
(2) The technical feasibility and costs of--
(A) implementing mechanisms that would meet such standards;
and
(B) complying with such rules.
(3) Mechanisms that--
(A) have been developed or used before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) are for individuals to indicate simply and easily
whether the individuals prefer to have personal information
collected by providers of online services, including by
providers of mobile applications and services.
(4) How mechanisms that meet such standards should be
publicized and offered to individuals.
(5) Whether and how information can be collected and used
on an anonymous basis so that the information--
(A) cannot be reasonably linked or identified with a person
or device, both on its own and in combination with other
information; and
(B) does not qualify as personal information subject to the
rules promulgated under subsection (a)(2).
(6) The standards under which personal information may be
collected and used, subject to the anonymization or deletion
requirements of subsection (b)(1)--
(A) to fulfill the basic functionality and effectiveness of
an online service, including a mobile application or service;
(B) to provide the content or services requested by
individuals who have otherwise expressed, via a mechanism
that meets the standards promulgated under subsection (a)(1),
a preference not to have personal information collected; and
(C) for such other purposes as the Commission determines
substantially facilitates the functionality and effectiveness
of the online service, or mobile application or service, in a
manner that does not undermine an individual's preference,
expressed via such mechanism, not to collect such
information.
(d) Rulemaking.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
promulgate the standards and rules required by subsection (a)
in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States
Code.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF ``DO-NOT-TRACK'' MECHANISMS.

(a) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--
(1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.--A violation of
a rule promulgated under section 2(a)(2) shall be treated as
an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of a
regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.
(2) Powers of commission.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the
same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of
this Act.
(B) Privileges and immunities.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C), any person who violates this Act shall be
subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and
immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
(C) Nonprofit organizations.--The Federal Trade Commission
shall enforce this Act with respect to an organization that
is not organized to carry on business for its own profit or
that of its members as if such organization were a person
over which the Commission has authority pursuant to section
5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
45(a)(2)).
(b) Enforcement by States.--
(1) In general.--In any case in which the attorney general
of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the
residents of the State has been or is threatened or adversely
affected by the engagement of any person subject to a rule
promulgated under section 2(a)(2) in a practice that violates
the rule, the attorney general of the State may, as parens
patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of
the State in an appropriate district court of the United
States--
(A) to enjoin further violation of such rule by such
person;
(B) to compel compliance with such rule;
(C) to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation
on behalf of such residents;
(D) to obtain such other relief as the court considers
appropriate; or
(E) to obtain civil penalties in the amount determined
under paragraph (2).
(2) Civil penalties.--
(A) Calculation.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for purposes
of imposing a civil penalty under paragraph (1)(E) with
respect to a person that violates a rule promulgated under
section 2(a)(2), the amount determined under this paragraph
is the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days
that the person is not in compliance with the rule by an
amount not greater than $16,000.
(B) Maximum total liability.--The total amount of civil
penalties that may be imposed with respect to a person that
violates a rule promulgated under section 2(a)(2) shall not
exceed $15,000,000 for all civil actions brought against such
person under paragraph (1) for such violation.
(C) Adjustment for inflation.--Beginning on the date on
which the Bureau of Labor Statistics first publishes the
Consumer Price Index after the date that is 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
the amounts specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be
increased by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index published on that date from the Consumer Price Index
published the previous year.
(3) Rights of federal trade commission.--
(A) Notice to federal trade commission.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the
attorney general of a State shall notify the Federal Trade
Commission in writing that the attorney general intends to
bring a civil action under paragraph (1) before initiating
the civil action.
(ii) Contents.--The notification required by clause (i)
with respect to a civil action shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate the civil action.
(iii) Exception.--If it is not feasible for the attorney
general of a State to provide the notification required by
clause (i) before initiating a civil action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general shall notify the Federal Trade
Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action.
(B) Intervention by federal trade commission.--The Federal
Trade Commission may--
(i) intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney
general of a State under paragraph (1); and
(ii) upon intervening--

(I) be heard on all matters arising in the civil action;
and
(II) file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil
action.

(4) Investigatory powers.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of the State to conduct investigations, to
administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the attendance
of witnesses or the production of documentary or other
evidence.
(5) Preemptive action by federal trade commission.--If the
Federal Trade Commission institutes a civil action or an
administrative action with respect to a violation of a rule
promulgated under section 2(a)(2), the attorney general of a
State may not, during the pendency of such action, bring a
civil action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named
in the complaint of the Commission for the violation with
respect to which the Commission instituted such action.
(6) Venue; service of process.--
(A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be
brought in--
(i) the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code; or
(ii) another court of competent jurisdiction.
(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under
paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which
the defendant--
(i) is an inhabitant; or
(ii) may be found.
(7) Actions by other state officials.--
(A) In general.--In addition to civil actions brought by
attorneys general under paragraph (1), any other officer of a
State who is authorized by the State to do so may bring a
civil action under paragraph (1), subject to the same
requirements and limitations that apply under this subsection
to civil actions brought by attorneys general.
(B) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to prohibit an authorized official of a State from
initiating or continuing any proceeding in a court of the
State for a violation of any civil or criminal law of the
State.

[[Page S1026]]

SEC. 4. BIENNIAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT.

Not later than 2 years after the effective date of the
regulations initially promulgated under section 2, the
Federal Trade Commission shall--
(1) review the implementation of this Act;
(2) assess the effectiveness of such regulations, including
how such regulations define or interpret the term ``personal
information'' as such term is used in section 2;
(3) assess the effect of such regulations on online
commerce; and
(4) submit to Congress a report on the results of the
review and assessments required by this section.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 419. A bill to limit the use of cluster munitions; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster
Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.
Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of
cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use
cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.
In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster
munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets;
and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in
areas normally inhabited by civilians.
Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows
the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions
with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is
vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.
However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must
issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the
cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent
civilians.
Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual
``bomblets.''
They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations
spread over a half mile radius.
But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.
In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians
lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the
age of 18.
An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed
by cluster munitions since 1991.
During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of
them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.
Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.
According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air-
dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.
In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that
helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One
resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several
smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north
of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big
[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not
detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.
There were small holes in the ground. The holes were
dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions
released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.
Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian
forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster
munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.
Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that
many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to
explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.
One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I
saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the
streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I
saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including
women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by
an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his
right arm.
Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came
across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded
bomblet.
Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they
were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.
Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's
use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.
However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we
continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and
our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their
use.
In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster
munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an
estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.
According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million
submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than
one percent failure rate.
That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.
So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent
standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster
bombs with high failure rates.
How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?
While we wait, the international community has taken action.
On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which
would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and
requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years--
formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries
and ratified by 77 countries.
This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in
Afghanistan.
It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.
But it does not include the United States.
The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or
sign the treaty.
This is unacceptable.
Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are
``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''
Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the
face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster
munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on
cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use,
sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more
than 1 percent would be prohibited.
This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow
the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more
years.
That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should
take another look at this policy.
In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14
of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to
conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.
On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security
Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this
review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.
The administration should complete this review without delay.
Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well-
known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?
What does that say about us?
The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet
the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?
This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former
Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

[[Page S1027]]

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year
2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than
one percent.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and
Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action
until 2018.
If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the
Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to
innocent civilians.
We can do better.
First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and
President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of
cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.
That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the
books.
Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and
extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high
failure rates to our own arsenal.
For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon
to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of
more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the
President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to
protect the security of the United States to do so.
I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used
cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on
their use in Afghanistan since 2002.
In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as
committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by
cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common-
sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly
talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect
opportunity to exercise it.
Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath
Souliyalat.
Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled
to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his
eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.
The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years
ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine,
until his 16th birthday.
Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over
Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.
According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one-
third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one
percent of that area has been cleared.
Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or
injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians
that the United States did not intend to target.
After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had
been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We
have to do more.''
I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the
Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues
to support this important initiative.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from
California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Cluster Munitions
Civilian Protection Act of 2013. It is identical to the bill that she
and I have introduced in prior years, and I commend her for her
persistence on this important humanitarian issue.
I come to this issue having devoted much effort over many years to
shining a spotlight on and doing what can be done to help innocent
victims of war. In the last century, and continuing into this new
century, noncombatants increasingly have borne the brunt of the
casualties in armed conflicts across the globe. Limiting the use of
weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines, and that
have indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, are tangible,
practical, meaningful things we can do to reduce these unnecessary
casualties.
Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But
anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation that cluster
munitions cause over wide areas understands the unacceptable threat
they pose to noncombatants. These are not the laser guided weapons the
Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of
Baghdad. To the contrary. Cluster munitions can kill and maim anyone
within the 360 degree range of flying shrapnel.
There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to
explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until
they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is
an unsuspecting child, or a farmer.
Even now, in Laos today people are still being killed and maimed by
millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the 1970s. That legacy,
resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people
who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a
third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It
is shameful that we have contributed less in the past 35 years to clean
up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing.
Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster
munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also
requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a
requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against
military targets.
The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain
the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which
have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet
the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018.
Like Senator Feinstein I reject the notion that the United States can
justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and
injure innocent people including children, and which many of our allies
have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and
expects from the United States. If we have learned anything from
Afghanistan it is that harming civilians, even unintentionally, creates
enemies among those whose support we need, and undermines the mission
of our troops.
Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1 percent failure
rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of
enactment. However, our bill permits the President to waive the 1
percent requirement if the President certifies that it is vital to
protect the security of the United States. I would hope the Pentagon
would recognize that this is in its best interest, and will work with
us by supporting this reasonable step.
Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions
opened for signature in Dublin, at least 111 countries have signed the
treaty including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia and
other allies of the United States. However, the Bush Administration did
not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and
the Obama Administration has not signed it.
Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless
exercise, since it does not yet have the support of the United States
and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India and
Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning
antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other
countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has
dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and
stockpiled--and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any
government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that
it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is
only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions.
It is important to note that the United States today has the
technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the
requirements of our bill, as well as of the treaty. What is lacking is
the political will to act. There is no excuse for continuing to use
cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
I urge the Obama administration to review its policy on cluster
munitions and put the United States on a path to

[[Page S1028]]

join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation
would be an important step in the right direction.
I want again to thank and commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown
such passion and steadfastness in raising this issue and seeking every
opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.
______

By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Corker, and Mr.
Paul):
S. 421. A bill to prohibit the Corps of Engineers from taking any
action to establish a restricted area prohibiting public access to
waters downstream of a dam, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
along with Senator McConnell, Senator Paul, and Senator Corker, to
prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from restricting fishing
rights in some of the best fishing areas in the States of Tennessee and
Kentucky below 10 dams along the Cumberland River.
I have talked with the Corps several times about this. They have told
me the only solution is legislation. I am hoping there is some other
solution by reasonable compromise.
But I am taking the Corps's advice. On Tuesday, Congressman Ed
Whitfield, of Kentucky, introduced legislation on this matter, and so I
am introducing similar legislation today.
I have also drafted language that could be included in an
appropriations bill that would prevent the Corps of Engineers from
using any funds to restrict fishing in what is called the tailwaters
below these 10 Corps of Engineers dams on the Cumberland River.
Today I spoke with the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. I urged
him to have the Corps give Congress enough time to consider this
matter, perhaps to work out something with the Corps by compromise or,
if not, to pass legislation.
On Monday, I am meeting with the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, who is in charge of the Corps of Engineers, to ask that
the Corps stop taking any further action to build physical barriers
along the Cumberland River.
Earlier, I met with James DeLapp, the colonel who is the commander of
the Nashville District. Then I met, along with Congressman Whitfield
and Congressman Cooper of Nashville, TN, with MG Michael Walsh, who is
the deputy commanding general. I have had a number of meetings on this
subject, and I am determined to get some result, one way or the other.
I am delighted to have the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, my
colleague, Senator Corker from Tennessee, and Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky as cosponsors on the legislation.
One may say, with a large number of problems facing our country--from
Iran to the sequester--why is a Senator--in fact, four, and a number of
Congressmen interested in fishing?
There are 900,000 Tennesseeans who have fishing licenses, and one of
my jobs is to represent them. I know and they know these are some of
the best fishing areas in our State.
This is an area where grandfathers and grandsons and granddaughters
go on Saturdays and go during the week. There are lots of Tennesseeans
who consider these prize properties and their lands. These are public
lands, and they feel they have a right to be there.
The problem is that the Corps of Engineers wants to erect physical
barriers below the dams to keep the fishermen out of the area that is
just below the dam.
The Corps' goal is laudable. The goal is to improve safety, they say.
We all support safety, but there are much better solutions than this.
Let me give an analogy. When you have a railroad crossing, you do not
keep the gate down at the railroad crossing 100 percent of the time.
The track is not dangerous if the train is not coming.
The water comes through these dams only 20 percent of the time, and
the water is not dangerous if the water is not spilling through the
dams. So if we kept the gate down at the railroad crossing 100 percent
of the time, we would never be able to travel anywhere. That is the
same sort of reasoning we have here.
From Washington, the Department of the Army is saying they have a
policy, which they have had since 1996--which they have never applied
on the Cumberland River--that suddenly they have decided, after all
these years, they have to close the fishing area 100 percent of the
time, even though it might be dangerous only 20 percent of the time.
I am not the only one who thinks this is an unreasonable policy.
Last week, I went to Old Hickory Dam, near Nashville. About 150
fishermen were there with me on the banks of the Cumberland River. I
met with the Corps officials. They turned the water on so I could see
it spilling through the dam. Then they turned it off. I met with Ed
Carter, the director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. I met
with Mike Butler, the chief executive of the Tennessee Wildlife
Federation. I have talked with the Kentucky wildlife people and this is
what they say. They think the Corps' plans to improve safety are so
unreasonable that the wildlife agencies will not even help them enforce
it. But they say, on the other hand, there are reasonable ways to
improve safety; that is, to treat the waters below the dam the way the
Tennessee Valley Authority does, for example, which is to erect large
signs--some of which already exist at Old Hickory Dam--blow the siren
when the water is coming through. You can close the parking lot. You
could patrol the area. There are lots of ways to put the gate down, in
effect, on these fishing areas 20 percent of the time. That makes a lot
of sense, and the local agencies are willing to help do that.

Our legislation makes clear that for purposes of this act, installing
and maintaining sirens, strobe lights, and signage for alerting the
public of hazardous waters shall not be considered a part of the
prohibition. It makes no sense to take these public lands and say to
people: Well, the lawyers came in and said we need to be careful. Of
course we need to be careful; however, being careful does not mean you
keep the gate down over the railroad crossing 100 percent of the time,
and it doesn't mean you close the area to fishing 100 percent of the
time when it is dangerous only 20 percent of the time.
I am also concerned about the $2.6 million the Corps needs to
transfer from other parts of its budget to put up these physical
barriers. Where is the money coming from? I thought we were in the
middle of a big sequester, a big budget crunch. I thought we were out
of money. One of the areas which has some of the most difficult
problems to deal with is the Department of the Army. This is no time to
be wasting money building barriers that the wildlife people in
Tennessee and Kentucky, whose job it is to encourage boat safety, think
are unreasonable.
I am doing what the Corps has said needs to be done, which is to
provide legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with the
Corps of Engineers. My hope is that we can work out a reasonable
solution with the wildlife agencies.
The county judges on both sides of the border are very involved in
this. They see the economic benefit that comes from the large number of
people who visit those areas for recreational purposes. They leave
their dollars behind. This creates good jobs in Tennessee and Kentucky.
Basically, these are public waters. Tennessee and Kentucky fishermen
ought to have access to them, and there shouldn't be an edict from
Washington that puts the gate down the railroad crossing 100 percent of
the time. I am going to do my best to see that doesn't stand. I hope we
can work it out, but if we cannot, I am glad to introduce this
legislation with Senator McConnell, Senator Corker, and Senator Paul.
The same legislation is in the House of Representatives with
Congressman Whitfield. I look forward to my meeting Monday with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record as follows:

S. 421

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 ``Freedom to Fish Act''.

[[Page S1029]]

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED AREAS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall not take any action to establish a
restricted area prohibiting public access to waters
downstream of a dam owned by the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Exclusion.--For purposes of this Act, installing and
maintaining sirens, strobe lights, and signage for alerting
the public of hazardous water conditions shall not be
considered to be an action to establish a restricted area
under subsection (a).
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this section
shall apply to an action described in subsection (a) on or
after August 1, 2012.
(2) Existing restrictions.--If the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, has taken an action
described in subsection (a) during the period beginning on
August 1, 2012, and ending on the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) cease implementing the restricted area resulting from
the action; and
(B) remove any barriers constructed in connection with the
restricted area.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 431. A bill to authorize preferential treatment for certain
imports from Nepal, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal
Trade Preferences Act.
This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free
status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.
As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I
believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting
political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.
Nepal has a per capita income of $540.
Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in
poverty.
The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and
most Nepalese live on $3 a day.
Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist
insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.
Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels
signed a peace accord.
Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly
was elected to draft a new constitution.
Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a
new constitution.
Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.
In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on
garment imports were removed.
This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S.
importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers
with cheaper labor markets.
The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry
dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000
and 10,000.
Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47
million in 2011.
The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.
The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to
21 percent.
Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry,
Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7
percent and can be as high as 32 percent.
In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot
afford it. This makes no sense.
I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in
contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow
Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.
It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of
Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has
risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.
The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we
provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other
developed countries. No more, no less.
Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical
components of our efforts to help Nepal.
But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open
the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.
In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when
Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global
marketplace.
Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on
foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export
industries.
With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference
now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote
economic growth and higher living standards.
The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most,
Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment
imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.
Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.
But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood
the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of
garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise
every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.
By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment
industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic
growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of
living for the Nepalese people.
Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur
Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences,
and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is
essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this
legislation.
Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and
reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate
our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this
commonsense measure.
I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 432. A bill to extend certain trade preferences to certain least-
developed countries in Asia and the South Pacific, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia-
South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic
growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's
poorest countries.
This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for
garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary
countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.
The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed
Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State
Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference
program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos,
Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and
Vanuatu.
These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of
their citizens living on less than $1 a day.
Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of
the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.
In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of
U.S. tariffs.
Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S.
tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.
Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as
the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.
So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S.
tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent
with our values?
Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that
has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the
beneficiary countries in this bill.
Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries
of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so.
These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope
for millions of people struggling with poverty.
But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of
economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.
This is not about pitting one developing country against the other.
Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

[[Page S1030]]

ensuring that we help all of those in need.
In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support
for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as
an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and
put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.
Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and
development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.
Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn
countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.
Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of
living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital
export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.
It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the
Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that
hold out the best hope for export growth.
We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S.
market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries
in the past.
By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values:
reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their
own two feet.
We will also help ourselves.
First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new
opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.
This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own
country.
But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South
Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European
Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference
programs for these countries.
We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.
Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable
politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by
preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for
terror.
There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the
imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific
countries is far less than any military intervention.
We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against
global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a
global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume
a larger role and contribute more effectively.
When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance
helps.
Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on
imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help
lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more
options.
It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on
apparel imports.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade
Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific
countries.
Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about
this bill.
First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the
past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the
absence of rule of law.
Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference
program?
Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the
trade benefits provided by this legislation.
This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are
granted on a performance-driven basis.
That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that
it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law,
political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based
economy that protects private property rights.
So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating
employment opportunities.
The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right
path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.
If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our
efforts will fail.
Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference
program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on
domestic manufacturers.
If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be
minimal.
Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account
for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24
percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.
These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market,
but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their
export economies.
By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change
lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American
consumer. We should seize this opportunity.
I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this
important initiative.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.

____________________