[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1230-S1237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Warren, and Mr.
Brown):
S. 468. A bill to protect the health care and pension benefits of our
nation's miners; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in West Virginia, we revere our
miners--the men and women who put their lives on the line every single
day to provide for their families and bring light and heat to millions.
Their grit, their courage and their determination are inspirational to
each of us. The work they do every day provides nearly half of our
Nation with power and it helps underpin the economy of the State we
call home.
For their hard work in these grueling jobs mineworkers receive
promised pensions and lifetime health benefits. Health care for all
retirees is important. But, in many cases, it is even more so for
retired miners, who have stared the possibility of injury or illness in
the face every day. Unfortunately, today there are looming threats to
the pensions of more than 100,000 mineworkers and to the healthcare
benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents.
The miners' pension fund is on the road to insolvency. It has been
hit by the perfect storm--the recent financial crisis, the smaller
number of active mineworkers who provide the funding base for the
pension plan, and the large number of ``orphans'' who receive their
pensions under the plan. These ``orphans'' are retired mineworkers for
whom a company no longer makes contributions to the pension fund,
typically because the company is out of business.
Additionally, the bankruptcy of one coal company is threatening the
health benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents, the vast
majority of whom never worked for the company that is actually going
bankrupt. So despite the fact that they were promised lifetime
healthcare benefits by their employers when they gave their lives to
this industry doing the hardest work imaginable under that sacred
pledge they are now losing those benefits because a company they never
worked for is going bankrupt. That is unfair and unjust.
That is why today I am introducing the Coalfield Accountability and
Retired Employee Act. This legislation protects pensions for more than
100,000 mineworkers by taking excess funds from the Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation Program and transferring that money to the miners' 1974
pension plan. The Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act
also would protect retiree health benefits by making any retiree who
loses benefits following the bankruptcy or insolvency of his or her
employer eligible for the health benefits provided by the COAL Act.
And, importantly this legislation would hold employers accountable for
the commitments they make to their workers. That is just basic
fairness.
Supporting our Nation's miners is not a new issue for our country and
it is not a new fight of mine. Dating back to President Harry Truman,
the Federal Government has assumed a responsibility to our mineworkers.
In 1992, I was deeply proud to work on the passage of the COAL Act,
through which we recommitted to our miners that a promise made would be
a promise kept. That bill allowed the transfer of interest accruing to
the unappropriated balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to be
used to provide health care for a large number of orphaned miners and
their widows. This helped avert a nationwide coal strike and it
preserved health benefits for 200,000 retired miners and their widows.
This Federal commitment was renewed in the 2006 amendments to the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program that again protected the healthcare
plans of miners from insolvency.
Now, 20 years after passing the COAL Act, I am again renewing my
commitment to the hardest working people I have ever known with the
Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. We must preserve the
solvency of our miners' pension plans and protect the healthcare
benefits they need, earned and were rightfully promised. This is about
human decency, it is about doing what is right, and it is about having
the backs of those who have ours deep underground.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
S. 475. A bill to reauthorize the Special Olympics Sport and
Empowerment Act of 2004, to provide assistance to Best Buddies to
support the expansion and development of mentoring programs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. 475
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Eunice
Kennedy Shriver Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS ACT
Sec. 101. Reauthorization.
TITLE II--BEST BUDDIES
Sec. 201. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 202. Assistance for Best Buddies.
Sec. 203. Application and annual report.
Sec. 204. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS ACT
SEC. 101. REAUTHORIZATION.
Sections 2 through 5 of the Special Olympics Sport and
Empowerment Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 15001 note) are amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(1) Special Olympics creates the possibilities of a world
where everybody matters, everybody counts, and every person
contributes.
``(2) The Government and the people of the United States
recognize the dignity and value the giftedness of children
and adults with intellectual disabilities.
``(3) The Government and the people of the United States
recognize that children and adults with intellectual
disabilities experience significant health disparities,
including lack of access to primary care services and
difficulties in accessing community-based prevention and
treatment programs for chronic diseases.
``(4) The Government and the people of the United States
are determined to end the isolation and stigmatization of
people with intellectual disabilities, and to ensure that
such people are assured of equal opportunities for community
participation, access to appropriate health care, and
inclusive education, and to experience life in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
``(5) For more than 40 years, Special Olympics has
encouraged skill development, sharing, courage, and
confidence through year-round sports training and athletic
competition for children and adults with intellectual
disabilities.
``(6) Special Olympics provides year-round sports training
and competitive opportunities to more than 4,200,000 athletes
with intellectual disabilities in 30 individual and team
sports and plans to expand the benefits of participation
through sport to more than a million additional people with
intellectual disabilities within the United States and
worldwide over the next 5 years.
[[Page S1231]]
``(7) Research shows that participation in activities
involving both people with intellectual disabilities and
people without disabilities results in more positive support
for inclusion in society, including in schools.
``(8) Special Olympics has demonstrated its ability to
provide a major positive effect on the quality of life of
people with intellectual disabilities, improving their health
and physical well-being, building their confidence and self-
esteem, and giving them a voice to become active and
productive members of their communities. In the United
States, for example, adults with intellectual disabilities
who have participated in Special Olympics have a 100 percent
greater chance of being employed than adults with
intellectual disabilities who have not.
``(9) In society as a whole, Special Olympics has become a
vehicle and platform for reducing prejudice, improving public
health, promoting inclusion efforts in schools and
communities, and encouraging society to value the
contributions of all members.
``(10) The Government of the United States enthusiastically
supports the Special Olympics movement, recognizes its
importance in improving the lives of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families, and recognizes Special
Olympics as a valued and important component of the global
community.
``(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are to--
``(1) provide support to Special Olympics to increase
athlete participation in, and public awareness about, the
Special Olympics movement, including efforts to promote
broader community inclusion;
``(2) dispel negative stereotypes and establish positive
attitudes about people with intellectual disabilities;
``(3) build community engagement through sports and related
activities; and
``(4) promote the extraordinary gifts and contributions of
people with intellectual disabilities.
``SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS.
``(a) Education Activities.--The Secretary of Education may
award grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, Special Olympics to carry out each of the
following:
``(1) Activities to promote the expansion of Special
Olympics, including activities to increase the full
participation of people with intellectual disabilities in
athletics, sports and recreation, and other inclusive school
and community activities with people without disabilities.
``(2) The design and implementation of Special Olympics
education programs, including character education and
volunteer programs that support the purposes of this Act,
that can be integrated into classroom instruction and
community settings, and are consistent with academic content
standards.
``(b) International Activities.--The Secretary of State,
acting through the Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs, may award grants to, or
enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, Special
Olympics to carry out each of the following:
``(1) Activities to increase the participation of people
with intellectual disabilities in Special Olympics outside of
the United States.
``(2) Activities to improve the awareness outside of the
United States of the abilities of people with intellectual
disabilities and the unique contributions that people with
intellectual disabilities can make to society, and to promote
active support for sports programs for people with
intellectual disabilities.
``(c) Healthy Athletes.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services may award grants to, or enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, Special Olympics for the
implementation of on-site health assessments, screening for
health problems, health education, community-based
prevention, data collection, and referrals to direct health
care services.
``(2) Coordination.--Activities under paragraph (1) shall
be coordinated with appropriate health care entities,
including private health care providers, entities carrying
out local, State, Federal, or international programs, and the
Department of Health and Human Services, as applicable.
``(d) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated to carry out this
section shall not be used for direct treatment of diseases,
medical conditions, or mental health conditions. Nothing in
the preceding sentence shall be construed to limit the use of
non-Federal funds by Special Olympics.
``SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT.
``(a) Application.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of
section 3, Special Olympics shall submit an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, or Secretary
of Health and Human Services, as applicable, may require.
``(2) Content.--At a minimum, an application under this
subsection shall contain each of the following:
``(A) Activities.--A description of activities to be
carried out with the grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement.
``(B) Measurable goals.--A description of specific
measurable annual benchmarks and long-term goals and
objectives to be achieved through specified activities
carried out with the grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement, which specified activities shall include, at a
minimum, each of the following activities:
``(i) Activities to increase the full participation of
people with intellectual disabilities in athletics, sports
and recreation, and other inclusive school and community
activities with people without disabilities.
``(ii) Education programs that dispel negative stereotypes
about people with intellectual disabilities.
``(iii) Activities to increase the participation of people
with intellectual disabilities in Special Olympics outside of
the United States and promote volunteerism on behalf of such
activities.
``(iv) Health-related activities as described in section
3(c).
``(b) Annual Report.--
``(1) In general.--As a condition on receipt of any funds
for a program under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 3,
Special Olympics shall agree to submit an annual report at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, or Secretary
of Health and Human Services, as applicable, may require.
``(2) Content.--At a minimum, each annual report under this
subsection shall describe--
``(A) the degree to which progress has been made toward
meeting the annual benchmarks and long-term goals and
objectives described in the applications submitted under
subsection (a); and
``(B) demographic data about Special Olympics participants,
including the number of people with intellectual disabilities
served in each program referred to in paragraph (1).
``SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
under section 3(a), $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2014, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years;
``(2) for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
under section 3(b), $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2014, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years; and
``(3) for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
under section 3(c), $8,500,000 for fiscal year 2014, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.''.
TITLE II--BEST BUDDIES
SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Best Buddies operates the first national social and
recreational program in the United States for people with
intellectual disabilities.
(2) Best Buddies is dedicated to helping people with
intellectual disabilities become part of mainstream society.
(3) Best Buddies is determined to end social isolation for
people with intellectual disabilities by promoting meaningful
friendships between them and their typical peers in order to
help increase the self-esteem, confidence, and abilities of
people with and without intellectual disabilities.
(4) Since 1989, Best Buddies has enhanced the lives of
people with intellectual disabilities by providing
opportunities for 1-to-1 friendships and integrated
employment.
(5) Best Buddies is an international organization spanning
1,500 middle school, high school, and college campuses.
(6) Best Buddies implements programs that will positively
impact more than 700,000 individuals in 2013.
(7) The Best Buddies Middle Schools program matches middle
school students with intellectual disabilities with other
middle school students and supports 1-to-1 friendships
between them.
(8) The Best Buddies High Schools program matches high
school students with intellectual disabilities with other
high school students and supports 1-to-1 friendships between
them.
(9) The Best Buddies Colleges program matches adults with
intellectual disabilities with college students and creates
1-to-1 friendships between them.
(10) The Best Buddies e-Buddies program supports e-mail
friendships between people with and without intellectual
disabilities.
(11) The Best Buddies Citizens program pairs adults with
intellectual disabilities in 1-to-1 friendships with other
people in the corporate and civic communities.
(12) The Best Buddies Jobs program promotes the integration
of people with intellectual disabilities into the community
through supported employment.
(13) The Best Buddies Ambassadors program educates and
empowers people with intellectual disabilities to be leaders
and public speakers in their schools, communities, and
workplaces. Best Buddies Ambassadors prepares people with
intellectual disabilities to become active agents of change.
(14) Best Buddies Promoters empowers youth to become
advocates for people with intellectual disabilities. Students
who take part in Best Buddies Promoters are introduced to the
disability rights movement and the importance of inclusion
through local awareness events.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) provide support to Best Buddies to increase
participation in and public awareness about Best Buddies
programs that serve people with intellectual disabilities;
(2) dispel negative stereotypes about people with
intellectual disabilities; and
[[Page S1232]]
(3) promote the extraordinary contributions of people with
intellectual disabilities.
SEC. 202. ASSISTANCE FOR BEST BUDDIES.
(a) Education Activities.--The Secretary of Education may
award grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, Best Buddies to carry out activities to
promote the expansion of Best Buddies, including activities
to increase the participation of people with intellectual
disabilities in social relationships and other aspects of
community life, including education and employment, within
the United States.
(b) Limitations.--Amounts appropriated to carry out this
title may not be used for direct treatment of diseases,
medical conditions, or mental health conditions.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to limit the use of non-Federal funds by Best
Buddies.
SEC. 203. APPLICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT.
(a) Application.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement under section 202(a), Best Buddies
shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary of Education may
require.
(2) Content.--At a minimum, an application under this
subsection shall contain the following:
(A) A description of activities to be carried out under the
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
(B) Information on specific measurable goals and objectives
to be achieved through activities carried out under the
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
(b) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--As a condition of receipt of any funds
under section 202(a), Best Buddies shall agree to submit an
annual report at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary of Education may require.
(2) Content.--At a minimum, each annual report under this
subsection shall describe the degree to which progress has
been made toward meeting the specific measurable goals and
objectives described in the applications submitted under
subsection (a).
SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Education for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements
under section 202(a), $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and
such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 476. A bill to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act
to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce
legislation to support greater public involvement in the administration
of one of Maryland's most treasured National Historical Parks. The
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission
Act ensures that the communities located along the 184\1/2\ mile-long
C&O Canal National Historical Park have a voice with the National Park
Service regarding decisions affecting the administration of the Park.
The Commission keeps the people and small businesses most affected by
the operation of the C&O Canal National Historical Park informed and
involved in the decisions surrounding the Park. Citizen involvement in
the governmental process is a hallmark of our democracy and the C&O
Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission Act exemplifies the
goal of ensuring the public's role in government decision making.
The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the
uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers
an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River
from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington
D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western
Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath, popular among
cyclists, backpackers, day hikers and runners, hundreds of historic
structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Brunswick, Harpers
Ferry, Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday,
all tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/
West commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the
Potomac River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest
points, the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than two-
tenths of a mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring
commercial and residential properties bordering the Park.
During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were
local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the
canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality
and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal
National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the
park user experience. Whether it is a hotel or Bed and Breakfast to
spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to
shop in and perhaps stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent
a canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make
repairs to your bike or any of the myriad of goods and services park
visitors may need, the communities along the C&O Canal are as important
to the Park user experience as the Park's users are to maintaining
their businesses.
In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal National
Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more people visited
this historic treasure than the number of people who visited
Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National Park. Much
of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is attributable to
the positive relationship that has developed over time between the
National Park Service and the local community leaders that span the
length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly facilitated this
relationship.
The Commission provides the vital link between the affected
communities that the Park runs through and the National Park Service.
The Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous
processes surrounding operational policy and infrastructure maintenance
and restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The
Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park
activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between
the Commission and the National Park Service helps tie the Park to its
communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and does
not have the authority to make binding park policy.
The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude, R-MD.
Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before Congress, when the 10-
year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times
over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by unanimous consent
and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the
Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the
Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an
authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always
functioned at a nominal cost.
The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions
Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's
expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of
the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered
the cost of travel for commission members, $295, Federal staff time,
$28,074, and miscellaneous expenses, $4,830, like meeting space,
printing, supplies and website maintenance.
The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and
historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is
rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of
caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National
Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog
of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical
role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the
National Park Service with their completion because there is
recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and
the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a
desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission
provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
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:
[[Page S1233]]
S. 476
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
COMMISSION.
Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development
Act (16 U.S.C. 410y-4(g)) is amended by striking ``40'' and
inserting ``50''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 477. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to modify a
provision relating to gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Tribal
Gaming Eligibility Act.
This bill sets forth what I believe is a very reasonable, moderate
standard for where tribes are allowed to open gaming establishments.
The standard is simple: a tribe must demonstrate that it has a modern
and an aboriginal connection to the land before it can open a gaming
establishment on it.
The new standard is needed because too many tribes in California and
across the nation are ``reservation shopping''. They look for a
profitable casino location, and then seek to put that land in trust
regardless of their historical ties to the area.
To be clear, most tribes do not fit this mold. Most play by the rules
and acquire land in appropriate locations.
But as wealthy Las Vegas casino interests search for ways to expand
their gaming syndicates, the problem is getting worse. These syndicates
have no interest in preserving native cultures and they have little
interest in pursuing other forms of economic development; so they also
have little interest in limiting casinos to bone fide historical tribal
lands.
The tragic part is that these casinos are going up despite objections
from communities and other Native American tribes. That is why I am
introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.
This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off
reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions
before taking land into trust for gaming:
First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern
connection to the land.''
Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal
connection to the land.''
Simply put, tribes must show that both they, and their ancestors,
have a connection to the land in question.
California voters thought they settled the question of reservation
shopping in 2000 when Proposition 1A authorized the Governor to
negotiate gambling compacts with tribes, provided that gaming only
occurred ``on Indian lands.''
The words ``on Indian lands'' were critical. This made clear that
gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters
endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.
But fast-forward 12 years and this agreement is being put to the
test. More than 100 new Las Vegas style casinos have opened in the
State in the last 12 years.
Unfortunately things aren't slowing down; the Department of the
Interior has approved three extremely controversial new casinos just
last year, some nowhere near the tribe's aboriginal territory or
current reservation.
When given the opportunity voters have rejected the idea of
reservation shopping. Two years ago in Richmond, CA, a tribe proposed
taking land into trust at Point Molate to open a 4,000-slot-machine
mega-casino. Proponents touted it as a major economic engine for a
depressed area.
But the voters of Richmond knew the reality was far different. The
project threatened to burden state and local government services, and
it threatened to irreparably change the character of the community.
So Richmond voters made it clear how they felt by overwhelmingly
rejecting the advisory measure by a margin of 58 to 42. Voters also
elected two new city council members who strongly opposed the casino.
It was an unambiguous rejection of this reservation shopping proposal.
Fortunately the Department of the Interior rejected the misguided
Point Molate proposal. But voters in Yuba County were not so lucky.
In 2005, Yuba County voters had an opportunity to weigh in on a
casino in this mostly rural and suburban Northern California community.
By a margin of 52-48, voters rejected the proposal. Many cited concerns
about crime as a reason they opposed the project.
But after the dust settled, the Department of the Interior decided to
move forward with the project anyway. Despite the fact that voters
rejected it and only one of the 21 public officials in the area polled
on the issue expressed support for the project.
Moreover, the Department's claim that even one local official
supported the project is dubious. The so-called support is based on a
Memorandum of Understanding the County entered into prior to the
advisory election. The county never offered a letter of support when
consulted and still has not to this day.
As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local
governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to
support large casinos, with the promises of hundreds of construction
jobs, can be strong.
But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song
of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public
services and increased traffic congestion.
Some Indian gaming proponents and their out of state gaming syndicate
backers would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming
establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.
But a 2006 report, titled Gambling in the Golden State, paints a
different picture. The report compiled a comprehensive body of research
on the effects of casinos on their surrounding communities. The results
were staggering.
New casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent
crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.
New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement
expenditures of $15.34 per resident.
California spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-
gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian
casinos as their primary gambling preference.
The report confirms what many local elected officials and community
activists already know: casinos come at a tremendous cost.
Some have tried to mischaracterize my legislation. They have said it
limits the sovereignty of tribes or it destroys the ability to
undertake economic development.
But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the
truth.
The bill preserves the right of tribes to acquire trust land in any
location, provided they secure the approval of the Governor and meet
the strict two-part determination standards.
The bill puts no limits on where a tribe can acquire land for any
purpose other than gaming.
Because the fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately
placed, on historical tribal lands, and there is no need to argue about
the legitimacy of these establishments.
My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond
the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
was passed in 1988.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 478. A bill to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or
other documentation is not subject to judicial review; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government
Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a
report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the
country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism
because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The
GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a
threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals
were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community
suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory
information with our consular officers in
[[Page S1234]]
time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to
revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the
United States.
What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked,
immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the
revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They
were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them.
Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual
even if they could deport them.
The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not
being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to
stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted
to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to
give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows
the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United
States without the hurdles they currently face.
Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by
consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular
officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination
if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This
is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is
not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by
law, to review the determination of the political branch of the
Government to exclude a given alien.''
Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to
point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do
so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States
is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such
privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United
States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the
procedure which the United States provides.''
The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows
the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the
United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a
person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government
subsequently revokes that visa.
There are some national security implications at stake. The ability
to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly
impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the
revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their
authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all
when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They
need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our
communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place.
Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary,
he said,
The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as
a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once
they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of
their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process.
That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are
admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest
misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go
to court over it.
What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on
terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that
led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to
be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community
share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't
revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be
reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials
need to share information with immigration and consular officers to
prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their
mobility.
My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the
deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non-
reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat
revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal
Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the
United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa.
Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let
that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others
who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the
courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the
government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe.
I urge my colleagues to support my bill.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Portman, and Mr.
Pryor):
S. 479. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the employment tax treatment and reporting of wages paid by
professional employer organizations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S1234, March 6, 2013, in the second column, the
following appears: S. 479. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to clarify the employment tax treatment and reporting
of wages paid by professional employer organization, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
The Record has been corrected to read: S. 479. A bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the employment tax
treatment and reporting of wages paid by professional employer
organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Small
Business Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Portman,
and Pryor. Many small businesses rely on Professional Employer
Organization, PEOs, and to handle many of their human resources
responsibilities. The Small Business Efficiency Act will provide an
important layer of certainty and protection for small business owners
and their workers by eliminating any ambiguity about a certified PEOs
ability to assume employment tax responsibility. It further implements
safeguards for the certified PEOs small business clients. This will
give small businesses peace of mind that their human resources and
employment tax responsibilities are taken care of so they can focus on
their core business and create more jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Sanders, and Mr. Tester):
S. 482. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
protections for consumers against excessive, unjustified, or unfairly
discriminatory increases in premium rates; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have made great strides in
improving the accountability of health insurance companies and
protecting consumers from egregious practices. However, despite the
progress we have made, many States still lack the ability to regulate
excessive health insurance rate increases.
Health insurance premiums in the individual and small group market
continue to grow beyond the rate of medical inflation. The Affordable
Care Act has brought greater scrutiny to the market and we've seen some
great progress. In fact, the number of requested increases in health
insurance premiums beyond 10 percent comprised 75 percent of rate
filings in 2010, and that has declined to 34 percent in 2012. This is a
large step forward but without closing the remaining loophole not all
consumers will be able to benefit from protection from unreasonable
rate increases. Health insurance companies will continue to do what
they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people.
Rapidly escalating insurance costs strain businesses, families, and
individuals.
Currently, 15 States still have little or no authority to block or
modify unreasonable rate increases in the individual and small group
markets. This means that even when the state's insurance regulators
find a rate increase to be excessive, they do not have the ability to
block or modify the increase. The Health Insurance Rate Review Act
creates a Federal fallback for States currently lacking this authority.
This will create parity across the country and give greater consistency
of review and accountability for insurance companies seeking to raise
rates beyond what is reasonable.
This legislation is a simple, commonsense solution: for States where
the insurance commissioner does not have or use authority to block
unreasonable rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
can do so.
Affordability is vital to insuring access to quality health care. A
2010 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found
[[Page S1235]]
that 70 percent of people with a health problem found it difficult or
impossible to find affordable coverage on the individual market. This
problem goes beyond the increased cost of overall medical care. From
the year 2000 to 2010, average premiums for family coverage increased
by 117 percent, compared to medical inflation which rose close to 49
percent.
Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income
than ever before, increasing around three times faster than wages are.
This means that more and more families have to choose between health
care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education.
This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.
The Affordable Care Act made important steps forward in defining the
rate review process and making rate increases and reviews public
information. This has improved transparency but falls short of creating
a strong rate review system in all States, and relies too heavily on
the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance
companies to change their behavior every time they should.
I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in states that lack
the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate
review.
In some States, like California, companies are not required to go
through prior approval before rate increases go into effect. This means
that when the California Insurance Commissioner finds rate increases to
be unreasonable and excessive, he has no authority to actually stop or
modify the increases to consumers. California is facing double digit
rate hikes again this year and this legislation would help prevent such
excessive increases.
Earlier this year the California Insurance Commissioner found a rate
increase by Anthem Blue Cross to be unreasonable and the company
decided to proceed anyway. This affected around 250,000 small business
policy holders who saw an increase of around 10.6 percent, and when
combined with previous increases the average rate hike over two years
reaches 19.5 percent.
In 2012, proposed rate increases across nine States by the John Alden
Life Insurance Company and Time Insurance Company were found to be
unreasonable but went forward anyway. These increases varied from a 12
percent increase in Louisiana to a 24 percent increase in Wisconsin.
These increases in the individual and small group market also affected
Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, and Wyoming.
In some States, insurance commissioners already have this authority
and are using it to protect consumers. This bill doesn't touch what
they are doing.
In New York, because state regulators have the authority to modify
rates, the average individual market increase for 2013 is four and a
half percent instead of the initial request of a nine and a half
percent increase.
In 2011, the Connecticut Insurance Department found an increase of
nearly 13 percent by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield to be excessive,
and approved a four percent increase instead.
Also in 2011, some North Dakota consumers on the individual health
insurance market were facing a nearly 30 percent increase before state
regulators stepped in and decreased the proposed hikes by almost half.
I strongly believe that we need to take action to strengthen the law
so all consumers get the protection of effective health insurance rate
review. I appreciate working with Representative Schakowsky, who is
sponsoring the House companion bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Health Insurance
Rate Review Act to stand up for American families struggling to pay for
health coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
important issue.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 483. A bill to designate the Berryessa Snow Mountain National
Conservation Area in the State of California, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa
Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson
and I introduced this legislation in the 112th Congress, and I am glad
to continue working on this effort with him in this new Congress.
This important legislation designates close to 350,000 acres of
public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties as the
Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is
a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home
to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles.
My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government, the
lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service and
it does not apply to state or private lands. A National Conservation
Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi-
agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the
public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat
restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will
also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing
and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution,
and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth.
By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps
put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for
new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet
least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA
designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in
the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has
estimated that outdoor recreation supports 732,000 jobs and contributes
$85.4 billion annually in consumer spending to California's economy,
underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed
Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth.
Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as
uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse
audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area.
Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong
support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials,
business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many
conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a
grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care
for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support
their work and commitment.
The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and
recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
effort.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Enzi,
Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 484. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act relating to
lead-based paint renovation and remodeling activities; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead
Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2013.
In April 2010, an EPA rule governing work done in homes constructed
before 1978 took effect. The aim of this rule is to protect at-risk
populations, defined as pregnant women and children under the age of
six, from harmful lead paint dust particles that may be generated
during home construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling work. While
lead paint was generally discontinued from in-home use in the 1960s and
1970s, the rule applies to all homes built before 1978 and requires all
contractors to be certified by the EPA and be supervised by an EPA
certified renovator while following rigorous and costly safe lead work
practices.
Some of these requirements include sealing off the area where the
renovation is occurring; removing all objects from the work area;
covering any porous work areas with smooth, cleanable areas; using
special tools that have emission exhaust controls; vacuuming all items,
including people's clothes, who leave the work space; and generally
cleaning the work area to ensure there is no dust following completion
of the job.
I believe everyone in this chamber stands strongly behind the intent
of the rule, which is to protect children
[[Page S1236]]
and pregnant women from the harmful effects of lead. With 20 kids and
grandkids, I appreciate the importance of the rule, and the potential
it has to further decrease lead exposure. But this rule does add
significant cost to the completion of renovation jobs and adds
significant regulatory hurdles to many small business owners in
situations where it may not at all be necessary.
Fortunately, the original rule included an opt-out provision for
homeowners who did not have any at-risk individuals living in their
homes. Provided the contractor made them aware of the potential lead-
paint risks, the homeowner could give the contractor permission to
carry out the job without following the EPA's lead safe work practices.
This makes sense because the health issues caused by renovation work in
homes with lead paint are minor for adults and older children who are
not members of the at-risk population.
But in July 2010, just three months after the rule took effect, the
EPA removed this opt-out provision. By doing this, EPA more than
doubled the number of homes requiring safe work practices and increased
the economy-wide cost of compliance by well more than $336 million by
EPA's own estimate, which is significantly less than reality.
Further, EPA has failed to meet the requirements of its own rule
because there are no commercially available lead paint test kits. Test
kits would allow contractors to see whether work spaces include any
lead paint, and if none is detected then the contractor would not have
to follow lead safe work practices, which makes sense. Unfortunately,
the test kits that are currently available produce 60-percent false
positives, requiring many homeowners to pay significantly more for home
remodeling work, even though there may not be any lead to protect them
from.
The bill I'm introducing today is simple. It would first require the
EPA to restore the opt-out provision. If homeowners have no residents
who are at-risk to lead paint contamination, then they should be able
to waive the regulatory requirement.
The bill will also suspend the rule for homes built after 1960 if the
EPA does not develop workable test kits, unless those homes include
members of the at-risk population. The bill would also provide a de
minimis exemption for first-time paperwork violations against
contractors. The EPA has focused its enforcement efforts on these
violations despite the fact that the contractors may be appropriately
following safe lead practices.
Finally, the bill prohibits EPA from expanding this regulation to
commercial and public buildings until it has completed a study to
determine the risk of such practices. EPA is in the process of writing
these regulations even though it has not yet completed the
corresponding study. If there is no risk, why would EPA issue
regulations? They would be a solution in search of a problem. EPA needs
to do its due diligence and determine whether there would be any
meaningful health benefits from extending this rule to other areas.
In closing, I want to reiterate my dedication to the cause of
protecting the health of vulnerable populations, and particularly
pregnant women and children. But it is important for EPA's regulations
to be pursued in a way that make sense, and that is what my bill
intends to do. This is an ongoing goal of mine as a senior member of
the Environment and Public Works Committee.
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. 484
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 ``Lead Exposure Reduction
Amendments Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 401 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2681) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting the clauses
appropriately;
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The term'';
(C) by striking ``Such term includes--'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `abatement' includes--''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `abatement' does not include
any renovation, remodeling, or other activity--
``(i) the primary purpose of which is to repair, restore,
or remodel target housing, public buildings constructed
before 1978, or commercial buildings; and
``(ii) that incidentally results in a reduction or
elimination of lead-based paint hazards.'';
(2) by redesignating--
(A) paragraphs (4) through (12) as paragraphs (5) through
(13);
(B) paragraph (13) as paragraph (15); and
(C) paragraphs (14) through (17) and paragraphs (18)
through (21), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Emergency renovation.--The term `emergency
renovation' means a renovation or remodeling activity that is
carried out in response to an event--
``(A) that is an act of God, as that term is defined in
section 101(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; or
``(B) that if not attended to as soon as is practicable--
``(i) presents a risk to the public health or safety; or
``(ii) threatens to cause significant damage to equipment
or property.'';
(4) by striking paragraph (10) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) and inserting the following:
``(10) Lead-based paint.--
``(A) In general.--The term `lead-based paint' means paint
or other surface coatings that contain lead in excess of--
``(i) 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared; or
``(ii) 0.5 percent by weight.
``(B) Target housing.--With respect to paint or other
surface coatings on target housing, the term `lead-based
paint' means paint or other surface coatings that contain
lead in excess of the lower of--
``(i) the level described in subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) a level established by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development under section 302(c) of the Lead-Based
Paint Poisoning Prevention Act.'';
(5) by inserting after paragraph (13) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(14) Postabatement clearance testing.--The term
`postabatement clearance testing' means testing that--
``(A) is carried out upon the completion of any lead-based
paint activity to ensure that--
``(i) the reduction is complete; and
``(ii) no lead-based paint hazards remain in the area in
which the lead-based paint activity occurs; and
``(B) includes a visual assessment and the collection and
analysis of environmental samples from an area in which lead-
based paint activities occur.''; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (15) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(16) Renovation.--The term `renovation' has the meaning
given such term in section 745.83 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of
this paragraph.
``(17) Renovation and remodeling regulation.--The term
`renovation and remodeling regulation' means a regulation
promulgated under section 402(a) and revised pursuant to
section 402(c)(3)(A), as such regulation is applied to
renovation or remodeling activities in target housing, public
buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial
buildings.''.
SEC. 3. LEAD-BASED PAINT ACTIVITIES TRAINING AND
CERTIFICATION.
Section 402(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2682(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Study of certification.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year prior to proposing
any renovation and remodeling regulation after the date of
enactment of the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of
2012, the Administrator shall conduct, submit to the
Congress, and make available for public comment (after peer
review) the results of, a study of the extent to which
persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling
activities in target housing, public buildings constructed
before 1978, or commercial buildings--
``(i) are exposed to lead in the conduct of such
activities; and
``(ii) disturb lead and create a lead-based paint hazard on
a regular or occasional basis in the conduct of such
activities.
``(B) Scope and coverage.--Each study conducted under
subparagraph (A) shall consider the risks described in
clauses (i) and (ii) of such subparagraph with respect to
each separate building type described in such subparagraph,
as the regulation to be proposed would apply to each such
building type.'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``Within 4 years''
and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Exemption.--An emergency renovation shall be exempt
from any renovation
[[Page S1237]]
and remodeling regulation, and a person carrying out an
emergency renovation shall be exempt from any regulation
promulgated under section 406(b) with respect to the
emergency renovation.
``(C) Prohibition on postabatement clearance requirement.--
No renovation and remodeling regulation may require
postabatement clearance testing.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Target housing owners.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and subject to subparagraph (B),
the Administrator shall promulgate regulations to permit an
owner of a residential dwelling that is target housing, who
resides in such residential dwelling, to authorize a
contractor to forgo compliance with the requirements of a
renovation and remodeling regulation with respect to such
residential dwelling.
``(B) Written certification.--The regulations promulgated
under subparagraph (A) shall require that an owner of a
residential dwelling that is target housing, who resides in
such residential dwelling, may only authorize a contractor to
forgo compliance with the requirements of a renovation and
remodeling regulation if the owner submits to such contractor
a written certification stating that--
``(i) the renovation or remodeling project is to be carried
out at the residential dwelling in which the owner resides;
``(ii) no pregnant woman or child under the age of 6
resides in the residential dwelling as of the date on which
the renovation or remodeling project commences, or will
reside in the residential dwelling for the duration of such
project; and
``(iii) the owner acknowledges that, in carrying out the
project, such contractor will be exempt from the requirements
of a renovation and remodeling regulation.
``(C) Restriction.--A contractor may not forgo compliance
with the requirements of a renovation and remodeling
regulation pursuant to a written certification submitted
under subparagraph (B) if such contractor has actual
knowledge of a pregnant woman or child under the age of 6
residing in the residential dwelling as of the date on which
the renovation or remodeling commences (and for the duration
of such project).
``(D) Limitation of contractor liability.--The
Administrator may not hold a contractor responsible for a
misrepresentation made by the owner of a residential dwelling
in a written certification submitted under subparagraph (B),
unless the contractor has actual knowledge of such a
misrepresentation.
``(5) Test kits.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Recognition.--The Administrator shall recognize for
use under this title a qualifying test kit, and publish in
the Federal Register notice of such recognition.
``(ii) Suspension of enforcement of certain regulations.--
If, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Administrator does not recognize a qualifying
test kit under clause (i), the Administrator--
``(I) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of such
failure to recognize a qualifying test kit; and
``(II) except as provided in clause (iii), may not enforce
any post-1960 building renovation and remodeling regulation,
with respect to a period beginning on the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this paragraph and ending on
the date that is 6 months after the date on which the
Administrator--
``(aa) recognizes for use under this title a qualifying
test kit; and
``(bb) publishes in the Federal Register notice of such
recognition and of the date on which enforcement of the post-
1960 building renovation and remodeling regulations will
resume.
``(iii) Applicability of suspension.--The Administrator
shall not suspend enforcement of any post-1960 building
renovation and remodeling regulation for the period described
in clause (ii)(II) with respect to a residential dwelling in
which a pregnant woman or child under the age of 6 resides.
``(B) Qualifying test kit.--In this subsection, the term
`qualifying test kit' means a chemical test that--
``(i) can determine the presence of lead-based paint, as
defined in section 401(10)(A);
``(ii) has a false positive response rate of 10 percent or
less;
``(iii) has a false negative response rate of 5 percent or
less;
``(iv) does not require the use of off-site laboratory
analysis to obtain results;
``(v) is inexpensively and commercially available; and
``(vi) does not require special training to use.
``(C) Post-1960 building renovation and remodeling
regulation.--In this subsection, the term `post-1960 building
renovation and remodeling regulation' means a renovation and
remodeling regulation, as it applies to--
``(i) target housing constructed after January 1, 1960;
``(ii) public buildings constructed between January 1, 1960
and January 1, 1978; and
``(iii) commercial buildings constructed after January 1,
1960.
``(6) Applicability of certain penalties.--Any renovation
and remodeling regulation requiring the submission of
documentation to the Administrator shall provide--
``(A) an exemption from an applicable penalty for failure
to comply with such requirement for a person who--
``(i) is submitting the required documentation for the
first time; and
``(ii) submits documentation that contains only de minimus
or typographical errors, as determined by the Administrator;
and
``(B) a process by which a person described in subparagraph
(A) may resubmit the required documentation.
``(7) Accreditation of recertification courses.--The hands-
on training requirements required by subsection (a)(2)(D)
shall not apply to any recertification course accredited by
the Environmental Protection Agency that is otherwise
required to be completed under this title by a person that is
certified to engage in renovation and remodeling
activities.''.
____________________