[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S101-S108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Schumer, and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 125. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2020, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015.
Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the
immensely successful grant program that provides matching funds for
State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase protective vests
for officers serving in the field.
Our Nation needs no additional reminders of the dangers faced by law
enforcement officers each and every day. Far too often we have grieved
as officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2014 alone, 126 men and
women serving in law enforcement lost their lives. Although protective
vests cannot save every officer, they have already saved the lives of
more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Vests dramatically
increase the chance of survival when tragedy occurs. I have met
personally with police officers who are living today because of a
bulletproof vest, and they will attest to the fact that the vests
provided through this program are worth every penny.
No officer should have to serve without a protective vest. Yet we
know that, for far too many jurisdictions, vests can cost too much and
wear out too soon. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program helps
to fill the gap. Since it was first authorized in 1999, it has enabled
more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase
more than one million bulletproof vests, including more than 4,000
vests for officers in Vermont. As these officers have helped to protect
our communities, these grants have helped to protect them.
Unfortunately the authorization for this grant program lapsed in 2012.
We must not delay any longer in reauthorizing this program
This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant
program. It provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely fitted
vests for female officers and others. It also codifies existing Justice
Department policies that grantee law enforcement agencies cannot use
other Federal grant funds to satisfy the matching fund requirement, and
they must also have mandatory wear policies to ensure the vests are
used regularly.
Protecting those who serve has historically been a bipartisan effort
in Congress. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I worked
together to create this program more than 15 years ago. It was so
successful that, in the past, it was reauthorized with a voice vote. It
was the right thing to do, it saved lives, and that was enough for both
Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan issue, and I am
pleased that Senator Graham is the lead cosponsor of this measure.
Senators Coons and Blunt are also original cosponsors of this bill.
The law enforcement community speaks with a single voice on this
issue. And I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal
Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police,
National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs'
Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs
Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National
Tactical Officers Association, and Sergeants Benevolent Association.
There are very few bills that can so directly affect and improve the
safety of those who serve and protect our communities. This program
saves lives, and I am hopeful that all Senators--Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents alike--will join us now to ensure its
swift reauthorization.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 132. A bill to improve timber management on Oregon and California
Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant land, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a bill that will end
the gridlock on the Oregon and California, O&C, lands found in my home
State. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Merkley is joining me in
this effort. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation, which went
on to be reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
after continued work with stakeholders and resulting modifications. I
feel that a great deal of progress was made in the last Congress to
find a solution for these lands in Oregon, but Congress ran out of time
to complete work on this bill. That's why I am back at it here today.
The bill I introduce today is intended to advance the progress made,
adopting the modifications from the bill that was reported out of
Committee, and paving the way to pass legislation regarding management
of these lands.
My legislation will end decades of uncertainty and broken forest
policy with a science-driven solution that moves past the decades old
timber wars. It does this by using science to guide management of the
O&C lands while upholding bedrock federal environmental laws. This bill
provides the jobs that Oregonians need, certainty of timber supply that
timber companies require, and continued environmental protections that
our treasures deserve.
First, my legislation divides the O&C lands, with roughly half set
aside for forestry emphasis and the other half for conservation
emphasis, to put a stop to the uncertainty and conflicting priorities
that have contributed to federal management failure on these lands and
produce wins on both sides of the historic timber conflict. The
forestry emphasis lands will employ proven forestry practices, known as
``ecological forestry,'' to mimic natural processes and create
healthier, more diverse forests. Modeling using Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service analysis confirms that ecological
forestry will more than double the harvest on O&C lands, producing
approximately 400 mmbf on the landscape covered by this bill.
On the conservation side, my bill provides permanent protections for
approximately 1.35 million acres of land, while designating wilderness
lands, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas. It creates
87,000 acres of wilderness and 252 miles of wild and scenic rivers. All
told, this would be the single biggest increase in Oregon's
conservation lands in decades. That includes special areas protected
for recreation, which is an increasingly important part of our rural
economy, and is responsible for 141,000 jobs in Oregon alone. Perhaps
the most important conservation win in the bill is the first-ever
legislative protection for old growth on O&C lands and the designation
of Late Successional Old-growth Forest Heritage Reserves.
The approach of dividing the lands into conservation and timber
emphasis and protecting old growth will provide clear management
direction for the landscape and take the most controversial harvests
off the table. Significantly, the bill streamlines and front loads
environmental analysis into two large scale environmental impact
statements--one each for moist and dry forests--that will study 5 years
of work in the woods, rather than a single project. It does this while
upholding the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental
laws.
Critical to the bill is the belief that forest policy should be
dictated by science, not lawyers. The forestry principles used in this
bill are based on the work of Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two
respected Northwest forestry scientists, and built off of forestry
approaches used around the globe. The bill also establishes the first
ever legislative protections for O&C streams thanks in large part to
the work of one of the Northwest's foremost water resources experts,
Dr. Gordon Reeves. The Northwest Forest Plan's stream protections are
extended to key watersheds and four drinking water emphasis areas, with
additional lands designated for conservation, to protect drinking
water. Science also guides how the agency can treat trees near streams
and a scientific committee will evaluate stream buffers and reserves in
areas dedicated to timber harvests, increasing or decreasing the
boundaries as needed to address the ecological importance of streams.
This
[[Page S102]]
acknowledges that one size does not fit all.
Most important is the fact that I will continue to advance efforts to
secure a new future for the O&C lands. My bill certainly doesn't
provide everything all sides want, but it can get everyone what they
need. I look forward to working with Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and
Schrader and our colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives
to pass an O&C solution into law.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 133. A bill to approve and implement the Klamath Basin agreements,
to improve natural resource management, support economic development,
and sustain agricultural production in the Klamath River Basin in the
public interest and the interest of the United States, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that
would authorize the implementation of three landmark agreements that
settle some of our country's most complex and contentious water
allocation and species preservation issues. Water management crises
this century have plagued the Klamath Basin, leading to devastating
water years for communities throughout the Basin. Overcoming that
adversity, stakeholders including State and Federal agencies, tribes,
farmers and ranchers, and environmental groups, have spent years coming
together to hammer out solutions. They swallowed hard and worked
together to bring costs down and deliver economic certainty and
stability for the Basin in the name of the greater good.
Last year, I introduced the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic
Restoration Act of 2014 to finally authorize the three historic
agreements reached by Basin partners--the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement, the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, and the
Upper Basin Agreement. I was deeply disappointed that the bill did not
get passed into law last Congress, delaying the implementation of these
important agreements and creating even more uncertainty and anxiety for
stakeholders in the Basin.
Inspired by the perseverance and dedication demonstrated by the
stakeholders, today I once again bring forward this bill, the Klamath
Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015, to put a
rubber stamp on the historic agreements and finally help heal the
Klamath Basin. With this bill, the Basin will no longer be known for
persistent drought, water disputes, and conflict, but rather for the
dedicated and enduring collaborative efforts that have honed in on a
sustainable and more economically certain future; an example that other
regions can emulate for their watershed challenges. I continue to
express my gratitude to the interested groups who came to the table and
formed partnerships, engaged in conversations, made agreements and
concessions, and ultimately found a path forward.
I'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Merkley, Boxer and
Feinstein on this bill. Senator Merkley has worked tirelessly to
encourage and support the years of conversations and collaborative
efforts of the countless stakeholders who have committed to finding a
balanced solution. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have provided
unwavering support for the communities impacted by unprecedented
drought in the Klamath Basin, which spans Oregon and California, while
also reaffirming the need to support fish and wildlife. Together, we
are committed to working with our colleagues in the Senate and House to
advance this bill and get it signed by the President.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mr. McConnell, and Mr.
Paul):
S. 134. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude
industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Merkley, McConnell, and Paul in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming
Act of 2015.
I introduced this bill during the 113th Congress with these same
colleagues to amend a regulation that is holding America's economy
back. I am committed to empowering American farmers and increasing
domestic economic activity, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
The United States is the world's largest consumer of hemp products,
yet it remains the only major industrialized country that bans hemp
farming. As the United States imports millions of dollars of hemp
products, such as textiles, foods, paper products and construction
materials, American farmers who could grow hemp right here at home are
unable to profit from this growing market. This is an outrageous
restriction on free enterprise and does nothing but hurt economic
growth and job creation.
The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015 would amend the definition of
``marihuana'' in the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial
hemp, allowing American farmers to produce domestically the hemp we
already use. Industrial hemp is a safe, profitable commodity in many
other countries, and I've long said that if you can buy it at the local
supermarket, American farmers should be able to grow it. This
commonsense bill would end the burdensome restrictions on industrial
hemp and is pro-environment, pro-business, and pro-farmer.
I encourage my colleagues to take the time to learn about the great
potential for farming industrial hemp in the United States, and to
understand the real differences between industrial hemp and marijuana.
Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC
levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade
marijuana typically has 5 percent THC content. The bottom line is that
no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. And to guarantee that
won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to
take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum
0.3 percent THC level.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Merkley, McConnell, Paul, and
me by cosponsoring and ultimately passing this important bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 134
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 ``Industrial Hemp Farming Act
of 2015''.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF
MARIHUANA.
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (16)--
(A) by striking ``(16) The'' and inserting ``(16)(A) The'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial
hemp.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(57) The term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis
sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not,
with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more
than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.''.
SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION BY STATES.
Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
811) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Industrial Hemp Determination.--If a person grows or
processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making
industrial hemp in accordance with State law, the Cannabis
sativa L. shall be deemed to meet the concentration
limitation under section 102(57), unless the Attorney General
determines that the State law is not reasonably calculated to
comply with section 102(57).''.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 135. A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the
deployment of vulnerabilities in data security technologies; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that I
introduced at the end of the last Congress along with a bipartisan
group of colleagues in the House of Representatives. We call it the
Secure Data Act, because it is designed to help protect the sensitive
data of American citizens
[[Page S103]]
and businesses from being compromised by foreign hackers. And I believe
it will also help protect and promote the American digital economy at a
time when growing the number of family-wage jobs is so important both
to Oregonians and to people across the country.
Hardly a week goes by without a new report of a massive data theft by
computer hackers, often involving trade secrets, consumers' financial
information, or sensitive government records. It is well known that the
best defense against these attacks is strong data encryption and more
secure technology systems.
This is why I and many others have been troubled by suggestions from
senior officials that computer hardware and software manufacturers
should be required to intentionally create security holes, often
referred to as back doors, to enable the government to access data on
every American's cell phone and computer, even if that data is
protected by strong encryption. The problem with this proposal is that
there is no such thing as a magic key that can only be used by good
people for worthwhile reasons. There is only strong security or weak
security.
Americans are rightly demanding stronger security for their personal
data. And requiring companies to build back doors into their products
would mean deliberately creating weaknesses that hackers and
unscrupulous foreign governments could exploit. The results of this
approach can be seen elsewhere--in 2005, citizens of Greece discovered
that dozens of their senior government officials' phones had been under
surveillance for nearly a year. The eavesdropper was never identified,
but the vulnerability was--it was built-in wiretapping features
intended to be accessible only to government agencies following a legal
process.
Mandating back doors would also remove incentives for innovation. If
you're required to build a wall with a hole in it, you aren't going to
invest a lot of money in developing better locks. And these mandates
could also do enormous harm to U.S. technology companies that are
working hard to overcome the damage that has been done by recklessly
broad surveillance policies and years of deceptive statements by senior
government officials.
This legislation would expressly prohibit the government from
mandating that tech companies build security weaknesses into their
products. I would note that similar legislation from Representatives
Massie and Lofgren passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan
vote of 293-123 in June of last year. So, I look forward to working
with colleagues on a bipartisan basis to advance this bill, and to
receiving feedback and input from colleagues and interested
stakeholders, so that it can be further improved as it moves forward.
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. 135
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 ``Secure Data Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY MANDATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
agency may mandate that a manufacturer, developer, or seller
of covered products design or alter the security functions in
its product or service to allow the surveillance of any user
of such product or service, or to allow the physical search
of such product, by any agency.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates
authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(c) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term in
section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and
(2) the term ``covered product'' means any computer
hardware, computer software, or electronic device that is
made available to the general public.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Brown):
S. 136. A bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide that fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased
veterans shall be included with mothers of such veterans as preference
eligibles for treatment in the civil service; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our country has asked a lot of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout its history and it
will continue to do so as long as the world looks to America for
leadership in crises. These brave men and women don't join the military
looking for public accolades and all they ask in return for their many
sacrifices is for the government to honor its commitments to them--
something I have certainly always tried to do.
Of course our men and women in uniform and our veterans aren't the
only folks who make sacrifices in the name of national security. From
child care, to household repairs and bills, to legal issues, our
military families are called on to provide support in innumerable ways
as their loved ones serve and deploy. While we hope and pray that all
those sent abroad return safely to the arms of their loved ones, we
know that this isn't always the case. When servicemembers return home
wounded or weakened as a result of combat, it is our military families
who step up to take care of their son or daughter, husband or wife.
When servicesmembers do not return, it is our military families who
endure that searing pain that comes with such a terrible loss.
It is an understatement to say that government cannot take away that
pain; but what government can, and must, do is honor that sacrifice.
One way we do that is by extending certain benefits to the families of
those who are killed or permanently and totally disabled in action.
Today, along with Senator Brown, I am introducing the Gold Star Fathers
Act to update one of those benefits.
The Office of Personnel Management currently allows unmarried mothers
of fallen soldiers to claim a 10-point veterans' preference when
applying for Federal jobs. Our legislation would simply extend this
preference to unmarried fathers of fallen soldiers. Updating this
preference is about fairness and recognizing that fathers, too, share
in the sacrifice that their family has made for this country. Updating
this preference will also expand opportunities for Gold Star families
to bring their dedication and compassion into the federal government,
where it can be put to great use.
Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Fathers have incurred a debt that
Congress cannot ever hope to repay. All we can hope to do is ensure
that these sacrifices are acknowledged and honored. It is my hope that
the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly.
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. 136
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 ``Gold Star Fathers Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN
PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.
Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the
following:
``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or her life
under honorable conditions while serving in the armed forces
during a period named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section,
if--
``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently
disabled; or
``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is
unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her
spouse;
``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently and
totally disabled veteran, if--
``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently
disabled; or
``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is
unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her
spouse; and''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Cardin):
S. 137. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of the Treasury to regulate tax return preparers; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you go to get your hair cut, your barber
or
[[Page S104]]
stylist must be licensed. If you need to get the locks on your home
repaired or replaced, the locksmith needs a license. But if you have
someone prepare your tax return, there is no requirement that the
preparer meet any minimum competency standard. It is time for that to
change so taxpayers are protected when they file their taxes.
On April 8 of last year, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing
to discuss ways to protect taxpayers from incompetent, unethical and
fraudulent tax return preparers. There is no question the tax code is
overly complex and confusing. For that reason among others, more than
80 million Americans pay someone else to prepare their income tax
return each year.
That's why it was so alarming to learn that most paid tax return
preparers don't have to meet even basic standards of proficiency or
competence to prepare someone else's tax return.
A series of investigations by the GAO and Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration, TIGTA, illustrated some of the problems with
incompetent tax return preparers. As a consequence, the IRS took steps
to require paid tax return preparers to demonstrate they have the know-
how to provide the taxpayer with a service he or she can reasonably
rely upon.
I am proud to say my home state gets this issue right. Tax preparers
in Oregon study, pass an exam and keep up with the changing landscape
of the tax code in order to maintain their licenses, and those
standards work. The GAO took a look at the system a few years ago and
found that tax returns from Oregon were 72 percent likelier to be
accurate than returns from the rest of the country. That puts fewer
Oregonians at the mercy of unscrupulous preparers and reduces the risk
of the dreaded audit.
These independent analyses, combined with too many taxpayer horror
stories of identity theft, refund and liability errors, and audit
challenges, demonstrated clearly that a lack of basic tax return
preparer competency standards is a serious consumer protection issue.
Today, I am introducing legislation that will help restore standards to
protect American taxpayers.
This legislation, the Taxpayer Protection and Preparer Proficiency
Act of 2015, which I am pleased to introduce with the distinguished
Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin--will grant the IRS the ability to
move forward with the type of education and examination program
contemplated under the 2011 Circular 230 program, specifically, the
Registered Tax Return Preparer, RTRP, Program.
Testing and minimum competency requirements have been clearly shown
to be effective at reducing error, fraud and tax preparer incompetence.
We need to protect American taxpayers, and this bill helps do just
that.
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. 137
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 ``Taxpayer Protection and
Preparer Proficiency Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF TAX RETURN PREPARERS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 330 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) regulate--
``(A) the practice of representatives of persons before the
Department of the Treasury; and
``(B) the practice of tax return preparers; and'', and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``or tax return preparer'' after
``representative'' each place it appears, and
(B) by inserting ``or in preparing their tax returns,
claims for refund, or documents in connection with tax
returns or claims for refund'' after ``cases'' in
subparagraph (D).
(b) Authority to Sanction Regulated Tax Return Preparers.--
Subsection (b) of section 330 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``before the Department'',
(2) by inserting ``or tax return preparer'' after
``representative'' each place it appears, and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``misleads or threatens''
and all that follows and inserting ``misleads or threatens--
``(A) any person being represented or any prospective
person being represented; or
``(B) any person or prospective person whose tax return,
claim for refund, or document in connection with a tax return
or claim for refund, is being or may be prepared.''.
(c) Tax Return Preparer Defined.--Section 330 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Tax Return Preparer.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `tax return preparer' has the
meaning given such term under section 7701(a)(36) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2) Tax return.--The term `tax return' has the meaning
given to the term `return' under section 6696(e)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(3) Claim for refund.--The term `claim for refund' has
the meaning given such term under section 6696(e)(2) of such
Code.''.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals
who achieve certification from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Incentives to
Educate American Children, the ``I Teach'' Act, which would provide a
$1,000 refundable tax credit to elementary and secondary school
teachers who teach in schools located in rural or impoverished areas.
It would also provide a $1,000 credit to teachers who achieve National
Board certification, and provide National Board certified teachers
serving in rural or impoverished schools a $2,000 credit. It was
previously introduced in the 113th Congress by Senator Rockefeller.
U.S. classrooms are increasingly filled with less experienced
teachers, as older teachers retire and the retention rate among young
teachers continues to decline. According to the most recent data, 1.7
million teachers, representing 45 percent of the workforce, had less
than 10 years of experience. Policy makers need to take steps to ensure
that students have the most qualified and best trained teachers
possible.
Nearly a third of public schools in the United States are in rural
areas. And rural schools often face challenges that others don't, like
smaller tax bases and higher recruitment costs, which means they often
have less money for classroom materials and salaries. Department of
Education data show that rural school districts have the lowest base
salaries for starting teachers, a trend that continues even as teachers
move to the top of the local salary range. Rural schools face these
challenges across the country.
The most recent study by the Education Trust found that high schools
with high poverty rates are twice as likely to have teachers who are
not certified in their fields than high schools with low poverty rates.
The same study found that schools serving impoverished areas have a
higher percentage of first year teachers. Rural schools face similar
problems.
According to the Department of Education, Oregon faces a shortage of
certified teachers for the 2014-15 school year in subject areas such as
math, science, Spanish, special education, English as a second
language, and bilingual education. A major deterrent to pursuing a
master's degree in teaching is the soaring cost of tuition, which,
especially for those candidates with strong science and math
backgrounds, drives them into other fields instead of educating the
next generation of scientists and researchers.
In other words, due to the high cost of education and teachers'
salaries which have failed to keep pace, additional incentives through
the tax code could encourage highly qualified individuals to look to or
continue to pursue teaching as a viable profession. I urge my
colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 138
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S105]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Incentives to Educate
American Children Act of 2015'' or the ``I Teach Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS TEACHING IN
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS LOCATED IN
HIGH POVERTY OR RURAL AREAS AND CERTIFIED
TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 36B the following new section:
``SEC. 36C. TAX CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS TEACHING IN ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS LOCATED IN HIGH POVERTY
OR RURAL AREAS AND CERTIFIED TEACHERS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal
to the applicable amount for the eligible academic year
ending during such taxable year.
``(b) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Teachers in schools in rural areas or schools with
high poverty.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an eligible teacher who
performs services in a public kindergarten or a public
elementary or secondary school described in subparagraph (B)
during the eligible academic year, the applicable amount is
$1,000.
``(B) School described.--A public kindergarten or a public
elementary or secondary school is described in this
subparagraph if--
``(i) at least 75 percent of the students attending such
kindergarten or school receive free or reduced-cost lunches
under the school lunch program established under the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or
``(ii) such kindergarten or school has a School Locale Code
of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of
Education.
``(2) Certified teachers.--In the case of an eligible
teacher who is certified by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards for the eligible academic
year, the applicable amount is $1,000.
``(3) Certified teachers in schools in rural areas or
schools with high poverty.--In the case of an eligible
teacher described in both paragraphs (1) and (2), the
applicable amount is $2,000.
``(c) Eligible Teacher.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible teacher' means, for any eligible academic
year, an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12
classroom teacher or instructor in a public kindergarten or a
public elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis
for such eligible academic year.
``(d) Additional Definitions.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms
`elementary school' and `secondary school' have the
respective meanings given such terms by section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(2) Eligible academic year.--The term `eligible academic
year' means any academic year ending in a taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2015.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, 36C'' after ``36B''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 36B the following new item:
``Sec. 36C. Tax credit for individuals teaching in elementary and
secondary schools located in high poverty or rural areas
and certified teachers.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to academic years ending in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2015.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Brown):
S. 139. A bill to permanently allow an exclusion under the
Supplemental Security Income program and the Medicaid program for
compensation provided to individuals who participate in clinical trials
for rare diseases or conditions; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan
Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2015. I would like to begin
by thanking Senators Hatch and Markey for joining me in cosponsoring
this legislation. I would also like to thank the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation for working with me on this important issue since 2010.
This bill is simple: it would remove a sunset that exists for a law
we passed in 2010 making it easier--and more likely--for people
receiving Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to participate in
rare disease clinical trials. As I explained in 2010, we wanted to
proceed carefully when altering how compensation for participating in
clinical trials is treated for SSI and Medicaid purposes. That is why
we included a 5 year sunset and asked GAO to report on how the law is
working. Five years have passed and GAO has issued its report.
GAO's frank assessment is that not a lot is known about how the law
may or may not have affected the decisions an SSI recipient makes about
participating in clinical trials. At the same time, GAO provided
important context about factors affecting a decision to participate,
such as time and travel. The GAO report suggests that the law has
removed a barrier to participation for the individuals that rely on SSI
and Medicaid's safety net, and GAO's consultation with the National
Institutes of Health, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, and
the Social Security Administration did not identify any negative
aspects from the change in the law.
That is comforting and important, and it is reason enough to make
this law permanent. We all know what's at stake and how it's often
difficult to find participants for rare disease clinical trials. This
law has helped increase the number of people who can participate and,
hopefully, be a part of the effort to improve treatments and find
cures.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that recipients
of SSI and Medicaid can have the same opportunity to participate in
clinical trials as individuals who do not rely on these important
safety net programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
passing this bill soon.
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. 139
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 ``Ensuring Access to Clinical
Trials Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET PROVISION.
Effective as if included in the enactment of the Improving
Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-255,
124 Stat. 2640), section 3 of that Act is amended by striking
subsection (e).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs.
Gillibrand, and Mr. Kirk):
S. 140. A bill to combat human trafficking; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along
with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015.
Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal
enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the
world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat
this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand
for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would
not exist.
The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human
trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of
children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law
enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in
sex trafficking.
Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the
average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14.
Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study
of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of
San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83
percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The
overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States
are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department
of Justice.
I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January
and June of last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered
168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation
Cross Country.''
I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the
perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers
of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are
``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely
arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues
unabated.
[[Page S106]]
Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis
CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a
victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from
their exploitation.''
The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015 would address this problem
by incentivizing Federal and State law enforcement officers to target
buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the
crime of sex trafficking.
First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from
trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the Federal commercial sex
trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's
decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute
encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable
ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this
precedent.
Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts
accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of
the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a
prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age.
Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact,
subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear
line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be
prosecuted. Period.
Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an
appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law
contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex
trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject
to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted
of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage
children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be
punished the same.
Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to
prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and
convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked
victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the
prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would
provide additional data and encourage State and local governments to
increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked
victims.
Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would strengthen training
programs operated by the Department of Justice for Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers who investigate and prosecute sex
trafficking offenses. Under the bill, such training programs must
include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the
buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip
prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging
prosecution of these perpetrators. Training programs must also train
law enforcement in connecting trafficking victims with health care
providers, so that victims receive the health care services they need
to recover.
In addition, the bill requires that training programs for federal
prosecutors include components on seeking restitution for victims of
sex trafficking. An October 2014 study by The Human Trafficking Pro
Bono Legal Center found that federal prosecutors did not seek
restitution in 37 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought
between 2009 and 2012, even though restitution for trafficking victims
is mandatory under federal law. When the prosecutor did not seek
restitution, it was granted in only 10 percent of cases.
These results make clear that prosecutors play a critical role in
providing justice for trafficking victims. Our bill would ensure that
prosecutors are specifically trained to seek restitution for victims.
The bill would also require the Federal Judicial Center to provide
training to judges on ordering restitution for human trafficking
victims, so that judges are fully aware that federal law mandates that
restitution be ordered for these victims. Overall, restitution was
awarded in only 36 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases
brought between 2009 and 2012, according to The Human Trafficking Pro
Bono Legal Center's study. Too many trafficking victims are not
receiving the compensation they need to rebuild their lives and to
which they are entitled under the law.
Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a
wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related
offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek
a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking
statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human
trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary
servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a
wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for
human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or child pornography
production. Our bill would fix those omissions.
Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime
victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide
victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea
agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims
in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims'
rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later
proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.
The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to
appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court.
Regrettably, six appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims'
Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing
appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable
error''. Three other circuits have applied the correct standard: the
ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This
bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all
circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the
appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''
I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law
enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Fraternal Order of
Police, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against
Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors
for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International,
Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, Breaking Free, Equality
Now, National Organization for Victim Assistance, Seraphim Global, Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, City of Oakland, Chicago Alliance
Against Sexual Exploitation, Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition, and
Casa Cornelia Law Center. These groups are on the forefront in the
fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.
Many of the provisions in the Combat Human Trafficking Act were
included in the substitute amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth
and Trafficking Prevention Act, S. 2646, 113th Congress, which passed
the Senate Judiciary Committee last September. However, that bill was
not enacted into law before Congress adjourned. I am hopeful that we
can pass the bipartisan Combat Human Trafficking in this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting
this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 140
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 ``Combat Human Trafficking Act
of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REDUCING DEMAND FOR SEX TRAFFICKING; LOWER MENS REA
FOR SEX TRAFFICKING OF UNDERAGE VICTIMS.
(a) Clarification of Range of Conduct Punished as Sex
Trafficking.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or maintains'' and
inserting ``maintains, patronizes, or solicits'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and
[[Page S107]]
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1), the
Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or
recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person recruited,
enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained,
maintained, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age
of 18 years.''.
(b) Definition Amended.--Section 103(10) of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(10)) is
amended by striking ``or obtaining'' and inserting
``obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting''.
(c) Minimum Period of Supervised Release for Conspiracy to
Commit Commercial Child Sex Trafficking.--Section 3583(k) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``1594(c),'' after ``1591,''.
SEC. 3. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS REPORT ON STATE
ENFORCEMENT OF SEX TRAFFICKING PROHIBITIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of
trafficking in persons'', ``State'', and ``Task Force'' have
the meanings given those terms in section 103 of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
(2) the term ``covered offense'' means the provision,
obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a commercial sex act
involving a person subject to severe forms of trafficking in
persons; and
(3) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any
officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or
by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any
violation of criminal law.
(b) Report.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics shall--
(1) prepare an annual report on--
(A) the rates of--
(i) arrest of individuals by State law enforcement officers
for a covered offense;
(ii) prosecution (including specific charges) of
individuals in State court systems for a covered offense; and
(iii) conviction of individuals in State court systems for
a covered offense; and
(B) sentences imposed on individuals convicted in State
court systems for a covered offense; and
(2) submit the annual report prepared under paragraph (1)
to--
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives;
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(C) the Task Force;
(D) the Senior Policy Operating Group established under
section 105(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(g)); and
(E) the Attorney General.
SEC. 4. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of
trafficking in persons'', and ``State'' have the meanings
given those terms in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
(2) the term ``covered offender'' means an individual who
obtains, patronizes, or solicits a commercial sex act
involving a person subject to severe forms of trafficking in
persons;
(3) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the
meaning given the term in section 115 of title 18, United
States Code;
(4) the term ``local law enforcement officer'' means any
officer, agent, or employee of a unit of local government
authorized by law or by a local government agency to engage
in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of criminal law; and
(5) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any
officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or
by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any
violation of criminal law.
(b) Training.--
(1) Law enforcement officers.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that each anti-human trafficking program operated by
the Department of Justice, including each anti-human
trafficking training program for Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officers, includes technical training on--
(A) effective methods for investigating and prosecuting
covered offenders; and
(B) facilitating the provision of physical and mental
health services by health care providers to persons subject
to severe forms of trafficking in persons.
(2) Federal prosecutors.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that each anti-human trafficking program operated by
the Department of Justice for United States attorneys or
other Federal prosecutors includes training on seeking
restitution for offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, United
States Code, to ensure that each United States attorney or
other Federal prosecutor, upon obtaining a conviction for
such an offense, requests a specific amount of restitution
for each victim of the offense without regard to whether the
victim requests restitution.
(3) Judges.--The Federal Judicial Center shall provide
training to judges relating to the application of section
1593 of title 18, United States Code, with respect to
ordering restitution for victims of offenses under chapter 77
of such title.
(c) Policy for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--The
Attorney General shall ensure that Federal law enforcement
officers are engaged in activities, programs, or operations
involving the detection, investigation, and prosecution of
covered offenders.
SEC. 5. WIRETAP AUTHORITY FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING VIOLATIONS.
Section 2516 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(c)--
(A) by inserting before ``section 1591'' the following:
``section 1581 (peonage), section 1584 (involuntary
servitude), section 1589 (forced labor), section 1590
(trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or forced labor),''; and
(B) by inserting before ``section 1751'' the following:
``section 1592 (unlawful conduct with respect to documents in
furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or forced labor),''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``human trafficking,
child sexual exploitation, child pornography production,''
after ``kidnapping,''.
SEC. 6. STRENGTHENING CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.
(a) Notification of Plea Agreement or Other Agreement.--
Section 3771(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any
plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement.''.
(b) Appellate Review of Petitions Relating to Crime
Victims' Rights.--
(1) In general.--Section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the fifth sentence
the following: ``In deciding such application, the court of
appeals shall apply ordinary standards of appellate
review.''.
(2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply with respect to any petition for a writ of mandamus
filed under section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United States
Code, that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Tillis, Mr. Toomey, and Mr. Wicker):
S. 141. A bill to repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory
Board; to the Committee on Finance.
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. 141
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 ``Protecting Seniors' Access
to Medicare Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD.
Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), sections 3403 and
10320 of such Act (including the amendments made by such
sections) are repealed, and any provision of law amended by
such sections is hereby restored as if such sections had not
been enacted into law.
______
By Mr. NELSON (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Bennet, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand,
Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schatz,
and Mr. Schumer):
S. 142. A bill to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
promulgate a rule to require child safety packaging for liquid nicotine
containers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we all recognize the danger that many
hazardous chemicals and over-the-counter drugs pose to children. That's
why we require child-resistant packaging for these substances to
prevent accidental poisonings that could result in serious injury or
death.
Unfortunately, there is no child-resistant packaging required for
concentrated liquid nicotine, which can be toxic if ingested or even
absorbed through the skin. According to the American Academy of
Pediatrics, AAP, some of these small bottles of liquid nicotine contain
a concentrated and deadly amount of the substance. The AAP notes that
this small bottle contains enough nicotine to kill four small children.
Just a few drops of the liquid
[[Page S108]]
splashed on a child's skin can make the child very ill.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that
poison control centers received 3,957 calls in 2014 related to liquid
nicotine exposure. This is more than twice as many calls as in 2013,
when AAPCC reported 1,543 calls related to liquid nicotine exposure.
Sadly, it was only a matter of time before one of these accidental
nicotine poisonings resulted in death. This past December, a 1-year-old
boy in New York State died after ingesting liquid nicotine in his home.
We have to do more to protect children from deadly accidents like
this.
Today I am reintroducing the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act
with Senators Ayotte, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Durbin,
Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Markey, Merkley, Reed, Schatz, and Schumer to
prevent these unnecessary tragedies. This common-sense legislation
gives the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, authority and
direction to issue rules requiring safer, child-resistant packaging for
liquid nicotine products within 1 year of passage.
The CPSC already requires child-resistant packaging for many
household products, including over-the-counter medicines and cleaning
agents. These rules have prevented countless injuries and deaths to
children. There is no reason why bottles of liquid nicotine should not
be required to have child-resistant packaging as well.
I invite my colleagues to join us to support the Child Nicotine
Poisoning Prevention Act. Last Congress, this legislation was reported
out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee by voice
vote. Continuing our work together this Congress, we can pass this
bipartisan legislation and help prevent accidental child nicotine
poisonings.
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. 142
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 ``Child Nicotine Poisoning
Prevention Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. CHILD SAFETY PACKAGING FOR LIQUID NICOTINE
CONTAINERS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
(2) Liquid nicotine container.--The term ``liquid nicotine
container'' means a consumer product, as defined in section
3(a)(5) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2052(a)(5)) notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of such section,
that consists of a container that--
(A) has an opening from which nicotine in a solution or
other form is accessible and can flow freely through normal
and foreseeable use by a consumer; and
(B) is used to hold soluble nicotine in any concentration.
(3) Nicotine.--The term ``nicotine'' means any form of the
chemical nicotine, including any salt or complex, regardless
of whether the chemical is naturally or synthetically
derived.
(4) Special packaging.--The term ``special packaging'' has
the meaning given such term in section 2 of the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471).
(b) Required Use of Special Packaging for Liquid Nicotine
Containers.--
(1) Rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3(a)(5)(B) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)(B)) or
section 2(f)(2) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15
U.S.C. 1261(f)(2)), not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a
rule requiring special packaging for liquid nicotine
containers.
(B) Amendments.--The Commission may promulgate such
amendments to the rule promulgated under subparagraph (A) as
the Commission considers appropriate.
(2) Expedited process.--The Commission shall promulgate the
rules under paragraph (1) in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States Code.
(3) Inapplicability of certain rulemaking requirements.--
The following provisions shall not apply to a rulemaking
under paragraph (1):
(A) Sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15
U.S.C. 2056 and 2058).
(B) Section 3 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15
U.S.C. 1262).
(C) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 3 of the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1472).
(4) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or diminish the authority of the Food and
Drug Administration to regulate the manufacture, marketing,
sale, or distribution of liquid nicotine, liquid nicotine
containers, electronic cigarettes, or similar products that
contain or dispense liquid nicotine.
(5) Enforcement.--A rule promulgated under paragraph (1)
shall be treated as a standard applicable to a household
substance established under section 3(a) of the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1472(a)).
____________________