[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.

                          ____________________