[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4587-S4590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1175. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish
a program to provide loans and loan guarantees to enable eligible
public entities to acquire interests in real property that are in
compliance with habitat conservation plans approved by the Secretary of
the Interior under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.
This legislation will make it easier for communities across the
Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to
cost-effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of
growth on the environment and endangered species.
This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered
jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit
more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors
of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the
Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the
[[Page S4588]]
habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the
development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term
``incidental take permit''.
Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing
and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and
their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in
balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going
construction and development activity.
In California, the Western Riverside County multiple-species HCP is a
prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside
MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be
permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and
animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000
acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million.
In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs
nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental
impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation
infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in
expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure
projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the
county's economy.
Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with
a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the
development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this
explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals
will be attained.
In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat
acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated
communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to
finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed.
Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal
increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of
mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to
provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now
to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs
remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing
HCP's billions of dollars.
Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate
their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat
acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically
rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid
development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill
would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government
defaulted--a very rare occurrence.
These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at
reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take
advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of
this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the
Federal taxpayer: protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated
development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and
reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.
A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure
developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also
expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit
more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water
Resources Development Act, WRDA, last month. But where the WRDA
provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts
related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation
would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public
infrastructure.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will
encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at
minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local
government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal
dollars.
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. 1175
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 ``Infrastructure Facilitation
and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. CONSERVATION LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible public entity.--The term ``eligible public
entity'' means a political subdivision of a State,
including--
(A) a duly established town, township, or county;
(B) an entity established for the purpose of regional
governance;
(C) a special purpose entity; and
(D) a joint powers authority, or other entity certified by
the Governor of a State, to have authority to implement a
habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 10(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)).
(2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the conservation
loan and loan guarantee program established by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(b) Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.--
(1) Establishment.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
program to provide loans and loan guarantees to eligible
public entities to enable eligible public entities to acquire
interests in real property that are acquired pursuant to
habitat conservation plans approved by the Secretary of the
Interior under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539).
(2) Application; approval process.--
(A) Application.--
(i) In general.--To be eligible to receive a loan or loan
guarantee under the program, an eligible public entity shall
submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such
form and manner, and including such information as the
Secretary may require.
(ii) Solicitation of applications.--Not less frequently
than once per calendar year, the Secretary shall solicit from
eligible public entities applications for loans and loan
guarantees in accordance with this section.
(B) Approval process.--
(i) Submission of applications to secretary of the
interior.--As soon as practicable after the date on which the
Secretary receives an application under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall submit the application to the Secretary of
the Interior for review.
(ii) Review by secretary of the interior.--
(I) Review.--As soon as practicable after the date of
receipt of an application by the Secretary under clause (i),
the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a review of the
application to determine whether--
(aa) the eligible public entity is implementing a habitat
conservation plan that has been approved by the Secretary of
the Interior under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539);
(bb) the habitat acquisition program of the eligible public
entity would very likely be completed; and
(cc) the eligible public entity has adopted a complementary
plan for sustainable infrastructure development that provides
for the mitigation of environmental impacts.
(II) Report to secretary.--Not later than 60 days after the
date on which the Secretary of the Interior receives an
application under subclause (I), the Secretary of the
Interior shall submit to the Secretary a report that
contains--
(aa) an assessment of each factor described in subclause
(I); and
(bb) a recommendation regarding the approval or disapproval
of a loan or loan guarantee to the eligible public entity
that is the subject of the application.
(III) Consultation with secretary of commerce.--To the
extent that the Secretary of the Interior considers to be
appropriate to carry out this clause, the Secretary of the
Interior may consult with the Secretary of Commerce.
(iii) Approval by secretary.--
(I) In general.--Not later than 120 days after receipt of
an application under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
approve or disapprove the application.
(II) Factors.--In approving or disapproving an application
of an eligible public entity under subclause (I), the
Secretary may consider--
(aa) whether the financial plan of the eligible public
entity for habitat acquisition is sound and sustainable;
(bb) whether the eligible public entity has the ability to
repay a loan or meet the terms of a loan guarantee under the
program;
(cc) any factor that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate; and
(dd) the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior.
(III) Preference.--In approving or disapproving
applications of eligible public entities under subclause (I),
the Secretary shall give preference to eligible public
entities located in biologically rich regions in which rapid
growth and development threaten successful implementation of
approved habitat conservation plans, as determined by the
Secretary in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior.
[[Page S4589]]
(C) Administration of loans and loan guarantees.--
(i) Report to secretary of the interior.--Not later than 60
days after the date on which the Secretary approves or
disapproves an application under subparagraph (B)(iii), the
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior a
report that contains the decision of the Secretary to approve
or disapprove the application.
(ii) Duty of secretary.--As soon as practicable after the
date on which the Secretary approves an application under
subparagraph (B)(iii), the Secretary shall--
(I) establish the loan or loan guarantee with respect to
the eligible public entity that is the subject of the
application (including such terms and conditions as the
Secretary may prescribe); and
(II) carry out the administration of the loan or loan
guarantee.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
such sums as are necessary.
(d) Termination of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Bennet):
S. 1180. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
provide for the public availability of Medicare claims data; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Wyden and I reintroduced
the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act. This
collaborative effort includes two ideas for making Medicare billing and
spending more transparent.
The first provision comes from a bill I introduced in 2011 to enhance
the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It
would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue
regulations making Medicare claims and payment data available to the
public, similar to other federal spending disclosed on
www.USAspending.gov.
That website was created by legislation sponsored by then-Senator
Obama and Senator Coburn. It lists almost all federal spending, but it
doesn't include payments made to Medicare providers.
That means virtually every other government program, including some
defense spending, is more transparent than the Medicare program.
Omitting Medicare spending is especially alarming when you consider
the portion of Federal spending that goes through the Medicare program.
In 2011, the Federal Government spent $549 billion on Medicare.
Taxpayers have a right to see how their hard-earned dollars are being
spent. There should not be a special exception for hard-earned dollars
that happen to be spent through Medicare.
Transparency will restore that taxpayers' right.
Also, if doctors know that each claim they make will be publicly
available, it might deter some wasteful practices and overbilling.
Our bill accomplishes this by requiring the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to make available a searchable Medicare payment database
that the public can access at no cost.
The second provision in our bill clarifies that data on Medicare
payments to physicians and suppliers do not fall under a Freedom of
Information Act, FOIA, exemption.
In 1979, a U.S. District Court ruled that Medicare is prohibited from
releasing physicians' billing information to the public.
For over three decades, third parties that tried to obtain physician
specific data through the FOIA process have failed. Taxpayers have been
denied their right.
Another recent court decision lifted the injunction, but it does not
go far enough.
Our bill would make Congress' intent clear and provide the public
with the tools to finally gain access to important Medicare data.
I would like to provide one example of how valuable access to
Medicare billing data can be.
In 2011, using only a small portion of Medicare claims data, the Wall
Street Journal was able to identify suspicious billing patterns and
potential abuses of the Medicare program.
The Wall Street Journal found cases where Medicare paid millions to a
physician sometimes for several years, before those questionable
payments stopped.
That was only one organization using a limited set of Medicare data.
When it comes to public programs like Medicare, the Federal Government
needs all the help it can get to identify and combat fraud, waste and
abuse, and that is why a searchable Medicare claims database should be
made available to the public.
I have often quoted Justice Brandeis, who said, ``Sunlight is the
best disinfectant.'' That is what Senator Wyden and I are aiming to
accomplish with the Medicare Data Act.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Grassley to
introduce the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability
Act. I would like to begin by thanking my friend and esteemed colleague
for his unwavering commitment to greater transparency and
accountability in government. This Medicare DATA Act advances that
goal.
Sunshine continues to be the greatest disinfectant. In that light,
the Medicare DATA Act ensures all taxpayers have access to Medicare
Claims Database, both to aid them in making medical decisions, and in
understanding what their money is paying for in this vital, yet
enormous, health program. The Medicare Claims Database is an important
resource for public and private stakeholders as it captures healthcare
provider payment and claims information for roughly one-third of the
United States healthcare system. But why isn't this information already
available?
In 1978, the Department of Health Education and Welfare attempted to
release this information, upon request, under the premise that
accessibility to the source data was in the public interest and
therefore should be made available for public consumption. An
injunction by a Florida court, however, ordered otherwise.
I am pleased that the Florida court has reevaluated that decision and
recently lifted the injunction. This is a step in the right direction,
but the decision still leaves access to this data ``opaque.'' Data
requests are still subject to the Freedom of Information Act and can be
denied by Health and Human Services. Passage of the Medicare DATA Act
would put an end to that loophole.
Information affecting the American taxpayer should be part of the
public domain in a free society. With this principle in mind, I join
with Senator Grassley in changing ``business as usual.''
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that Medicare
data is finally fully transparent and available to Medicare
beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in this effort.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Begich, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Lee):
S. 1182. A bill to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 to require specific evidence for access to business records and
other tangible things, and provide appropriate transition procedures,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue
that is critical to our constitutional rights and our national
security. The revelation and subsequent declassification of the
National Security Agency's intelligence gathering programs have shocked
Americans in ways that I long ago had telegraphed. We are having a
spirited and critical debate about what the right balance between
privacy and security ought to be. With regards to NSA activity, I am
introducing bipartisan legislation today, with several senators of both
parties, designed to narrow Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, known
also as the ``business records'' provision, to better balance the
authorities we give the federal government while protecting our
constitutional rights. More specifically, my legislation would prevent
the federal government from collecting millions of law-abiding
Americans' phone call records without first establishing some nexus to
terrorism. We all expect the NSA to target terrorists, but the
revelations in the past few weeks have made clear that the information
of millions of law-abiding Americans is being swept up in the process.
Let me start by saying that I continue to feel that a number of the
permanent PATRIOT Act provisions
[[Page S4590]]
should remain in place to give our intelligence community important
tools to fight terrorism. But I also believe, as I stated two years ago
when offering this same legislation as an amendment to the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization bill, that Section 215 of this Act fails to strike the
right balance between keeping us safe and protecting the privacy rights
of Americans. Indeed, my concerns about this provision of the law have
only grown since I was first briefed on its secret interpretation and
implementation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
From the recent leaks and information since declassified about the
Section 215 collection program, we know that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court has interpreted this provision of the PATRIOT Act to
permit the collection of millions of Americans' phone records on a
daily, ongoing basis. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
I have repeatedly expressed concern that the interpretation of this
provision of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the government to obtain
``any tangible thing'' relevant to a national security investigation,
is at odds with the plain meaning of the law. This secrecy has
prevented Americans from understanding how these laws are being
implemented in their name. That is unacceptable.
Even before the nature of the bulk phone records collection program
was declassified, there was support for narrowing the language of
Section 215 from many in Congress and many Americans who feel strongly
about their constitutional right to privacy. In fact, the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization that passed the Senate in 2005 by unanimous consent
included language that would limit the government's ability to collect
Americans' personal information without a demonstrated link to
terrorism or espionage. While that language did not prevail in
conference, it demonstrated that bipartisan agreement on reforms to
Section 215 is possible.
In 2011, as the Senate took up the extension of a number of expiring
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I offered an amendment drawn directly
from language in the 2005 Senate-passed bill to narrow the application
of this provision. That amendment unfortunately did not receive a vote.
But today, along with my colleague Sen. Wyden and others, I am back at
it again--introducing bipartisan legislation drawn from that same
language.
Our bipartisan bill would narrow the PATRIOT Act Section 215
collection authority to make it consistent with what most Americans
believe the law allows. While this legislation would still allow law
enforcement and intelligence agencies to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain
a wide range of records in the course of terrorism- and espionage-
related investigations, it would require them to demonstrate that the
records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities--which is not the case today. I don't think it
is unreasonable to ask our law enforcement agencies to identify a
terrorism or espionage investigation before collecting the private
information of American citizens.
Many Coloradans share my belief that we need to place common-sense
limits on government investigations and link data collection to
terrorist- or espionage-related activities. If we cannot assert some
nexus to terrorism, then the government should keep its hands off the
phone data of law-abiding Americans.
Let me be very clear: our government must continue to diligently and
aggressively combat terrorism. We all agree with that critically
important goal. But I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that
collection of phone data be limited to investigations that are actually
related to terrorism or espionage. And I do not believe that we need to
sacrifice national security to strike this balance. In fact, as a
member of the Intelligence Committee who has studied our surveillance
programs closely, it has not been demonstrated to me that the bulk
phone records collection program has provided uniquely valuable
information that has stopped terrorist attacks, beyond what is
available through less intrusive means. But if we are going to continue
providing this authority to collect phone data from Americans'
communications, let's at least limit it to require a link to terrorism
or espionage. This is a commonsense step that we can take to strike a
better balance between keeping our country safe and respecting
constitutional rights.
I thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation, and ask
other colleagues to give it a close look. I will continue to press for
the PATRIOT Act to be reopened for debate, and when that occurs, I will
push for passage of this bipartisan bill that strikes a better balance
between keeping our nation safe and unduly trampling our constitutional
rights.
____________________