[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.
____________________