[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3763-S3767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KING (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1007. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 
biomass heating appliances for tax credits available for energy-
efficient building property and energy property; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of energy 
innovation, energy independence, national security, and local 
economies.
  The legislation I am introducing, the Biomass Thermal Utilization Act 
of 2013--known as the BTU Act--would give tax parity to biomass heating 
systems under sections 25d and 48 of the Internal Revenue Code and 
would help to encourage a very promising industry.
  By adding biomass heating systems to the eligible renewable 
technologies for residential and commercial tax credits, we can help 
make clean, home-grown heating more cost effective for hard-working 
Americans.
  By way of example, Maine has the highest home heating oil dependence 
of any State in the country--and nearly 80 cents of every $1 spent on 
heating oil goes out of State. Much of this money also leaves the 
country and goes to nations that are less than friendly with the U.S. 
Yet we have plenty of renewable heating sources here at home.
  In Maine, wood pellet boilers are the most widely used biomass 
heating systems. Wood pellet boilers run on trees grown in the State, 
cut by local loggers, processed into pellets in local mills, then 
purchased and used to heat local homes. Nearly every single heating 
dollar stays within the local economy. This supports good-paying jobs, 
working, productive forests, and it helps move the country toward 
energy independence.
  We are not talking about traditional woodstoves here. These are 
highly innovative, clean-burning systems that are simple to run. They 
can even be integrated with your smart phone so you can turn the heat 
up on your way home from work.
  In addition, thermal biomass systems--particularly wood pellet 
boilers--have very small carbon footprints. New trees are planted to 
replace the trees processed into pellets. These new trees capture the 
carbon released by the pellets. Compared to fossil fuels, such as home 
heating oil, this yields an extremely small carbon footprint.
  I am excited to offer this legislation and to be joined by Senator 
Collins.
  This bill could greatly benefit any State with a strong forestry 
industry but also States with industries that turn agricultural waste 
and nonfood stock plants into thermal biomass fuels. I look forward to 
working with colleagues from around the country to level the playing 
field for the biomass industry.
  Let us work together to keep our energy dollars here at home and 
create jobs in our backyard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 1013. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to add 
procedural requirements for patent infringement suits; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1013

       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 ``Patent Abuse Reduction Act 
     of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 281 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 281A. Pleading requirements for patent infringement 
       actions

       ``In a civil action arising under any Act of Congress 
     relating to patents, a party alleging infringement shall 
     include in the initial complaint, counterclaim, or cross-
     claim for patent infringement--
       ``(1) an identification of each patent allegedly infringed;
       ``(2) an identification of each claim of each patent 
     identified under paragraph (1) that is allegedly infringed;
       ``(3) for each claim identified under paragraph (2), an 
     identification of each accused apparatus, product, feature, 
     device, method, system, process, function, act, service, or 
     other instrumentality (referred to in this

[[Page S3764]]

     section as an `accused instrumentality') alleged to infringe 
     the claim;
       ``(4) for each accused instrumentality identified under 
     paragraph (3), an identification with particularity, if 
     known, of--
       ``(A) the name or model number of each accused 
     instrumentality; and
       ``(B) the name of each accused method, system, process, 
     function, act, or service, or the name or model number of 
     each apparatus, product, feature, or device that, when used, 
     allegedly results in the practice of the claimed invention;
       ``(5) for each accused instrumentality identified under 
     paragraph (3), an explanation of--
       ``(A) where each element of each asserted claim identified 
     under paragraph (2) is found within the accused 
     instrumentality;
       ``(B) whether each such element is infringed literally or 
     under the doctrine of equivalents; and
       ``(C) with detailed specificity, how the terms in each 
     asserted claim identified under paragraph (2) correspond to 
     the functionality of the accused instrumentality;
       ``(6) for each claim that is alleged to have been infringed 
     indirectly, a description of--
       ``(A) the direct infringement;
       ``(B) any person alleged to be a direct infringer known to 
     the party alleging infringement; and
       ``(C) the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that 
     contribute to or are inducing the direct infringement;
       ``(7) a description of the right of the party alleging 
     infringement to assert each--
       ``(A) patent identified under paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) patent claim identified in paragraph (2);
       ``(8) a description of the principal business of the party 
     alleging infringement;
       ``(9) a list of each complaint filed, of which the party 
     alleging infringement has knowledge, that asserts or asserted 
     any of the patents identified under paragraph (1);
       ``(10) for each patent identified under paragraph (1), 
     whether such patent is subject to any licensing term or 
     pricing commitments through any agency, organization, 
     standard-setting body, or other entity or community;
       ``(11) the identity of any person other than the party 
     alleging infringement, known to the party alleging 
     infringement, who--
       ``(A) owns or co-owns a patent identified under paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(B) is the assignee of a patent identified under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(C) is an exclusive licensee to a patent identified under 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(12) the identity of any person other than the party 
     alleging infringement, known to the party alleging 
     infringement, who has a legal right to enforce a patent 
     identified under paragraph (1) through a civil action under 
     any Act of Congress relating to patents or is licensed under 
     such patent;
       ``(13) the identity of any person with a direct financial 
     interest in the outcome of the action, including a right to 
     receive proceeds, or any fixed or variable portion thereof; 
     and
       ``(14) a description of any agreement or other legal basis 
     for a financial interest described in paragraph (13).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 281 
     the following:

``281A. Pleading requirements for patent infringement actions.''.

       (c) Review of Form 18.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Supreme Court shall review 
     and amend Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to 
     ensure that Form 18 is consistent with the requirements under 
     section 281A of title 35, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to alter 
     existing law or rules relating to joinder.

     SEC. 3. JOINDER OF INTERESTED PARTIES.

       Section 299 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Joinder of Interested Parties.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `interested 
     party', with respect to a civil action arising under any Act 
     of Congress relating to patents--
       ``(A) means a person described in paragraph (11) or (13) of 
     section 281A; and
       ``(B) does not include an attorney or law firm providing 
     legal representation in the action if the sole basis for the 
     financial interest of the attorney or law firm in the outcome 
     of the action arises from an agreement to provide that legal 
     representation.
       ``(2) Joinder of interested parties.--In a civil action 
     arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, the 
     court shall grant a motion by a party defending an 
     infringement claim to join an interested party if the 
     defending party shows that the interest of the plaintiff in 
     any patent identified in the complaint, including a claim 
     asserted in the complaint, is limited primarily to asserting 
     any such patent claim in litigation.
       ``(3) Limitation on joinder.--The court may deny a motion 
     to join an interested party under paragraph (2) if--
       ``(A) the interested party is not subject to service of 
     process; or
       ``(B) joinder under paragraph (2) would deprive the court 
     of subject matter jurisdiction or make venue improper.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCOVERY LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 300. Discovery in patent infringement suits

       ``(a) Discovery Limitation Prior to Claim Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in 
     a civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to 
     patents, if the court determines that a ruling relating to 
     the construction of terms used in a patent claim asserted in 
     the complaint is required, discovery shall be limited, until 
     such ruling, to information necessary for the court to 
     determine the meaning of the terms used in the patent claim, 
     including any interpretation of those terms used to support 
     the claim of infringement.
       ``(2) Discretion to expand scope of discovery.--
       ``(A) Timely resolution of actions.--If, under any 
     provision of Federal law (including the Drug Price 
     Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 98-
     417)), resolution within a specified period of time of a 
     civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to 
     patents will have an automatic impact upon the rights of a 
     party with respect to the patent, the court may permit 
     discovery in addition to the discovery authorized under 
     paragraph (1) before the ruling described in paragraph (1) as 
     necessary to ensure timely resolution of the action.
       ``(B) Resolution of motions.--When necessary to resolve a 
     motion properly raised by a party before a ruling relating to 
     the construction of terms (as described in paragraph (1)), 
     the court may allow limited discovery in addition to the 
     discovery authorized under paragraph (1) as necessary to 
     resolve the motion.
       ``(b) Sequence and Scope; Cost-shifting.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `additional discovery' means discovery of 
     evidence other than core documentary evidence; and
       ``(B) the term `core documentary evidence', with respect to 
     a civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to 
     patents--
       ``(i) subject to clause (ii), includes only documents 
     that--

       ``(I) relate to the conception, reduction to practice, and 
     application for the asserted patent;
       ``(II) are sufficient to show the technical operation of 
     the instrumentality identified in the complaint as infringing 
     the asserted patent;
       ``(III) relate to potentially invalidating prior art;
       ``(IV) relate to previous licensing or conveyances of the 
     asserted patent;
       ``(V) are sufficient to show revenue attributable to any 
     claimed invention;
       ``(VI) are sufficient to show the organizational ownership 
     and structure of each party, including identification of any 
     person that has a financial interest in the asserted patent;
       ``(VII) relate to awareness of the asserted patent or 
     claim, or the infringement, before the action was filed; and
       ``(VIII) sufficient to show any marking, lack of marking, 
     or notice of the asserted patent provided to the accused 
     infringer; and

       ``(ii) does not include computer code or electronic 
     communication, such as e-mail, text messages, instant 
     messaging, and other forms of electronic communication, 
     unless the court finds good cause for including such computer 
     code or electronic communication as core documentary evidence 
     of a particular party under clause (i).
       ``(2) Discovery sequence and scope.--In a civil action 
     arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, the 
     parties shall discuss and address in the written report filed 
     under rule 26(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
     the views and proposals of the parties on--
       ``(A) when the discovery of core documentary evidence 
     should be completed;
       ``(B) whether the parties will seek additional discovery 
     under paragraph (3); and
       ``(C) any issues relating to infringement, invalidity, or 
     damages that, if resolved before the additional discovery 
     described in paragraph (3) commences, will simplify or 
     streamline the case, including the identification of any key 
     patent claim terms or phrases to be construed by the court 
     and whether the early construction of any of those terms or 
     phrases would be helpful.
       ``(3) Discovery cost-shifting.--
       ``(A) In general.--In a civil action arising under any Act 
     of Congress relating to patents, each party shall be 
     responsible for the costs of producing core documentary 
     evidence within the possession, custody, or control of that 
     party.
       ``(B) Additional discovery.--
       ``(i) In general.--A party to a civil action arising under 
     any Act of Congress relating to patents may seek additional 
     discovery if the party bears the costs of the additional 
     discovery, including reasonable attorney's fees.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--A party shall not be allowed 
     additional discovery unless the party--

       ``(I) at the time that such party seeks additional 
     discovery, provides to the party from whom the additional 
     discovery is sought payment of the anticipated costs of the 
     discovery; or
       ``(II) posts a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the 
     anticipated costs of the discovery.

       ``(C) Rules of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) shall be construed to--

[[Page S3765]]

       ``(i) entitle a party to information not otherwise 
     discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 
     any other applicable rule or order;
       ``(ii) require a party to produce privileged matter or 
     other discovery otherwise limited under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure; or
       ``(iii) prohibit a court from--

       ``(I) determining that a request for discovery is 
     excessive, irrelevant, or otherwise abusive; or
       ``(II) setting other limits on discovery.''.

     SEC. 5. COSTS AND EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 285 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 285. Costs and expenses

       ``(a) In General.--The court shall award to the prevailing 
     party reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's 
     fees, unless--
       ``(1) the position and conduct of the non-prevailing party 
     were objectively reasonable and substantially justified; or
       ``(2) exceptional circumstances make such an award unjust.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Consideration of Certain 
     Settlements.--In determining whether an exception under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) applies, the court 
     shall not consider as evidence any license taken in 
     settlement of an asserted claim.
       ``(c) Recovery.--If the non-prevailing party is unable to 
     pay reasonable costs and expenses awarded by the court under 
     subsection (a), the court may make the reasonable costs and 
     expenses recoverable against any interested party, as defined 
     in section 299(d).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 285 and inserting the following:

``285. Costs and expenses.''.

       (2) Conforming amendments.--Chapter 29 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 271(e)(4), in the flush text following 
     subparagraph (D), by striking ``attorney fees'' and inserting 
     ``reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's 
     fees,'';
       (B) in section 273(f), by striking ``attorney fees'' and 
     inserting ``reasonable costs and expenses, including 
     attorney's fees,''; and
       (C) in section 296(b), by striking ``attorney fees'' and 
     inserting ``reasonable costs and expenses (including 
     attorney's fees)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1014. A bill to reduce sports-related concussions in youth, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as parents, we can see the scrapes 
and cuts our children get--the unavoidable byproducts of growing up. A 
little bit of ointment and some bandages usually do the trick. But what 
of the injuries we can't see? The ones we can't readily tell, no matter 
how well we know our kids.
  Each year, as many as 3.8 million Americans suffer sports- and 
recreation-related brain injuries. Some are horrific, deadly, and 
visible to the naked eye. But the vast majority are concussions caused 
by an awkward hit, a freak fall, or a routine blow to the head on the 
field. They cannot be seen, but the damage is there in the very place 
that houses our minds and for our children their future.
  Most susceptible are our young athletes, whose bodies and brains are 
still growing, with each concussion increasing the likelihood of 
suffering yet another. This past school year alone, more than 300,000 
of our high school athletes were diagnosed with concussions. Since 
2005, over 1.3 million concussions have been diagnosed among high 
school athletes in just the top nine most common sports. However, 
researchers say these figures likely underestimate--vastly--the true 
extent of the epidemic because so many head injuries go unreported or 
ignored. And when a concussion occurs, few ever lose consciousness, and 
the telltale signs can seem minor in the immediate aftermath. It is 
only later on, perhaps the next day or weeks thereafter, when the 
consequences become clearer and more alarming.
  The urgency to act only grows the more we learn about brain injuries. 
Concussions aren't minor bumps and dings. They aren't something kids 
should just ``play through,'' as some coaches advise. They are injuries 
to the brain that animate our very existence, and they can impair their 
cognitive abilities just when our children need a good head on their 
shoulders. And we, as a society, have already seen the potential 
tragedies that repeated concussions can bring to athletes--their limbs 
paralyzed or their lives cut short by the inner demons the injuries 
eventually bear.
  The role of sports, and all of its innate benefits, is an important 
part of growing up in America. They teach us lessons that can't be 
taught in the classroom, they make us healthier, and they show us the 
value of teamwork, grit, and responsibility. But the pervasiveness of 
concussions and their effects, particularly among children, should no 
longer be disregarded. And, as policymakers and parents, we must ensure 
that we are doing everything we can to learn more and safeguard our 
kids and athletes.
  Senator Tom Udall and I are proud to introduce the Youth Sports 
Concussion Act, which will help ensure that protective sports equipment 
take heed of the latest science and are not sold based on false or 
deceptive premises.
  As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, we have already revealed and investigated bad actors 
who peddle products with false safety claims to parents of young 
athletes. Under this legislation, the Federal Trade Commission would be 
able to go after them with greater force and ensure this practice comes 
to an end.
  This bill would also direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
review a forthcoming study from the National Academies of Science on 
youth concussions. Based on the study's recommendations, the CPSC would 
then be permitted to consider new safety standards for sports equipment 
if manufacturers fail to come up with their own.
  The legislation--I am happy to say--has the strong support of major 
sports leagues and players associations. Pediatricians, scientists, and 
consumer groups have endorsed it, too. Our athletes, whether peewee or 
professional, whether under the lights or on the pitch, inspire and 
bring Americans together, and their efforts to help pass this sensible 
bill will surely garner the appreciation of present and future athletes 
to come.
  This fall, some 3 million children under the age of 14 will don their 
pads and snap on their helmets to play tackle football. For a sport so 
important--and for lives so precious--to our country, let us make sure 
we act as soon as we can. The lessons imparted and the fitness gained 
on the field are moot without the health of our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. SHAHEEN:
  S. 1021. A bill to provide for a Next Generation Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Strategy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the threat posed 
by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe 
and to introduce legislation aimed at modernizing the way the United 
States addresses this critical national security challenge. My bill, 
the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013, requires 
the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive and well-
resourced regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance 
cooperative threat reduction and related nonproliferation efforts in 
one of the most critical regions to U.S. national security interests: 
the Middle East and North Africa.
  Fifty years ago, in 1963, President Kennedy famously said that he was 
``haunted'' by the possibility that the United States could soon face a 
rapidly growing number of nuclear powers in our world. At the time, he 
predicted that by 1975, there could be as many as twenty countries with 
nuclear weapons. However, thanks to strong, forward-thinking and 
innovative American leadership on the nonproliferation agenda, 
including efforts like the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nunn-Lugar 
program, we have so far averted Kennedy's nuclear nightmare.
  Recent WMD-related developments, including Syria's chemical weapons 
stockpile and Iran's nuclear program, have begun to test the limits of 
our nonproliferation regime. I am afraid we may be quickly reaching an 
important crossroads--one where we either prove President Kennedy wrong 
for a little while longer, or find out that his nightmare prediction 
was simply a half-century too soon.
  As WMD-related materials and know-how continue to spread, the 
challenge of WMD proliferation is getting more

[[Page S3766]]

diffuse and harder to track. Our focus and our resource commitment need 
to match the severity of this emerging threat. Now is the time for us 
to recommit to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda and to demonstrate 
to the world that the U.S. will continue to lead in curbing the threat 
posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons around the world.
  We should start in one of the most dangerous, most unstable regions 
in the world today: the Middle East and North Africa.
  Nowhere is the proliferation challenge more glaring than in the 
countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where political 
instability and deeply-rooted violent extremism sit atop a complex web 
of ethnic differences, a history of violence and extremism, robust 
military capabilities, a growing collection of unsecured conventional 
and possible WMD-related weapons and a variety of inexperienced and 
potentially unstable governments brought into power by the Arab Spring.
  Continued upheaval in Syria and the threat posed by the Assad 
regime's substantial chemical weapons stockpile pose a grave challenge 
to U.S. interests. Iran's continued illicit development of its nuclear 
program and its movement towards an advanced nuclear weapons capability 
threatens the U.S. and our allies and could lead to a nuclear arms race 
in the region. Terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda 
continue to operate throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and 
their direct ties to the Iranian and Syrian regimes only exacerbates 
the threat posed by these groups as they seek to acquire weapons of 
mass destruction or know-how.
  Add to these threats the fact that the Arab Spring and continued 
revolutions across the region have brought popularly elected, yet 
untested governments into power that possess minimal capability and 
very little experience in countering WMD proliferation.
  In the face of this growing and complex challenge, it is obvious that 
the Middle East and North African region represents the next generation 
of WMD-related tests for the United States. Yet, our resources and our 
programming are not getting ahead of the threat. In fact, the 
nonpartisan ``Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy'' 
estimates that, excluding programs in Iraq, only two percent of last 
year's nonproliferation-related programming, or approximately 
$20,000,000 of an estimated $1,000,000,000, was spent in Middle East 
and North Africa countries.
  Luckily for us, we have a successful model for engagement on this 
issue that we can fall back on. Just over two decades ago, Senators Sam 
Nunn and Dick Lugar initiated what has proven to be one of the 
country's most effective foreign policy efforts. The Nunn-Lugar 
Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program has led to the successful 
deactivation of well over 13,000 nuclear warheads, as well as the 
destruction of over 1,400 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 
almost 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents. Because of Nunn-
Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are nuclear weapons free and 
Albania is chemical weapons free.
  The principles of Nunn-Lugar can and should be more fully translated 
into the Middle East and North Africa. Congress has long supported 
expanding CTR into the Middle East, but it was only last fall that the 
Administration finally completed the bureaucratic changes necessary to 
more robustly engage in this region.
  It is time we expand and ramp up our CTR efforts to prevent the 
potential proliferation of WMD-related weapons, technologies, 
materials, and know-how in this difficult and volatile part of the 
world. That is why I am introducing the Next Generation Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Act of 2013, which is aimed at modernizing our CTR and 
nonproliferation programs and expanding them more comprehensively 
throughout this region.
  The bill calls for the President to develop and implement a multi-
year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and 
advance CTR and nonproliferation in the Middle East and North Africa. 
The strategy requires an integrated, whole-of-government commitment to 
building on the cooperative threat model demonstrated by Nunn-Lugar's 
successes, the initiation of new CTR programs with newly elected 
partners in the region, and plans to ensure burden-sharing and 
leveraging of additional outside resources.
  The bill allows for the support of innovative and creative assistance 
programs aimed at enhancing the capacity of governments in the region 
to prevent, detect, and interdict illicit WMD-related trade. Activities 
could include:
  Encouraging and assisting with security and destruction of chemical 
weapons stockpiles; Promoting the adoption and implementation of 
enhanced and comprehensive strategic trade control laws and 
strengthening export controls and border security, including maritime 
security; Promoting government-to-government engagement among emerging 
political and public policy leaders, including the possibility of 
training courses for parliamentarians and national technical advisors; 
Promoting activities that seek to work with civil society 
organizations, media representatives, and public diplomacy officials to 
help develop a culture of nonproliferation responsibility among the 
general public; The possible establishment of nuclear, chemical, or 
biological security Centers of Excellence in the Middle East; 
Supporting, enhancing, or building upon regional nonproliferation 
programs and institutions already in place, including such multilateral 
initiatives as the December 2010 Gulf Cooperation Council conference on 
the implementation of UNSCR 1540 or the Arab Atomic Energy Agency and 
its Arab Network of Nuclear Regulators; Supporting, enhancing, or 
building upon previous multilateral initiatives, including the Group of 
Eight's Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials 
of Mass Destruction or the White House-led Nuclear Security Summits in 
2010 and 2012 to more fully incorporate and include countries of the 
Middle East and North Africa region; Encouraging countries to adopt and 
adhere to the IAEA Additional Protocol; Promoting and supporting WMD-
related regional confidence-building measures and Track Two regional 
dialogues on nonproliferation and related issues; Working 
collaboratively with businesses, foundations, universities, think tanks 
and other sectors, including the possibility of prizes and challenges 
to spur innovation in achieving appropriate Middle East and North 
Africa nonproliferation objectives; Supporting and expanding successful 
existing Middle East and North Africa partnerships, including the 
Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance; Promoting 
the establishment of professional networks that foster voluntary 
regional interaction on weapons of mass destruction-related issues; or 
enhancing United States-Europe cooperation on combating proliferation 
in the Middle East and North Africa region.
  The threat posed by WMD-related materials falling into the hands of 
terrorists remains our greatest and gravest threat. As former Defense 
Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Every senior leader, when you're asked 
what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending 
up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.''
  To date, we have largely kept WMD materials out of terrorists' hands. 
Unfortunately, however, being successful ``to date'' is not good 
enough. When it comes to terrorism and WMD in our world, the reality is 
that the international community cannot afford to make a single 
mistake. We cannot be complacent because one miscalculation . . . one 
unprotected border . . . one unsecured facility . . . could all lead to 
a mushroom cloud somewhere in our world.
  We need to remain vigilant, to think ahead, and to anticipate where 
the next threats will come from and adapt to get ahead of it.
  That is why I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and 
pass the Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013. We 
need to demonstrate that the United States will continue to lead the 
international community in curbing the threat posed by WMD 
proliferation. My legislation does just that. I hope the Senate will 
support this important effort.
  Before yielding the floor, I want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, at the White House and at 
the Departments of State and Defense who contributed to this 
legislation. I also want

[[Page S3767]]

to give special thanks to the Co-Chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle 
East Nonproliferation Strategy, including David Albright, Mark 
Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector and Michael Yaffe, whose 
report, ``U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle 
East,'' served as the inspiration for this legislation.

                          ____________________