[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.''.

                          ____________________