[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 55 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2246-S2253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Brown):
  S. 974. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
prohibit employment of children in tobacco-related agriculture by 
deeming such employment as oppressive child labor; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the important 
issue of child labor in tobacco fields. I want to tell you about 
Calvin, a 17-year-old boy just over five feet tall, who migrated to the 
United States by himself at age 13, leaving his family behind in 
Mexico. Calvin never enrolled in school.
  Instead, he joined a migrant crew that travels between several states 
to work in different crops. He migrates to Kentucky in August to work 
in the tobacco fields. Calvin has worked in tobacco farms since he was 
16, and he experiences headaches and nausea from nicotine poisoning.
  Calvin said he got sick while working in a curing barn. ``I got a 
headache and nausea. I was vomiting,'' he said. ``It happened when I 
was hanging the tobacco in the barn.''
  I wish that Calvin's experience was unusual. But in May of last year, 
the Human Rights Watch published a report based on interviews with over 
140 children who worked on U.S. tobacco farms in 2012 or 2013. The 
majority of those children were working for hire, and not on a family 
farm. Some of the findings are staggering and show that Calvin is not 
along.
  Human Rights Watch found that child tobacco workers began working on 
tobacco farms at age 11 or 12. During peak harvest periods, children 
can work as many as 50-60 hours a week. The majority of these children 
experience symptoms like nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, dizziness, 
lightheadedness, headaches, and sleeplessness while working on tobacco 
farms. These symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning, 
which happens when you absorb nicotine through their skin.
  Furthermore, in these conditions, children work in high heat and 
humidity and in some instances, they use dangerous tools that include 
sharp spikes to spear tobacco plants and climb to dangerous heights to 
hang tobacco in curing barns. These children are exposed to pesticides 
that are known toxins. Long-term effects of this exposure include 
cancer, neurological deficits, and reproductive health problems.
  In his first summer in the field, 12-year-old Miguel was topping 
tobacco plants on a farm in North Carolina wearing shorts and a short-
sleeved shirt, his torso draped with a black plastic garbage bag to 
cover himself from the summer's heavy rainstorms. Miguel wore only 
socks--because he did

[[Page S2247]]

not have shoes that could withstand the thick mud from the heavy rain.
  Miguel lives with his mother, 13-year-old brother, and 5-year-old 
sister in a rural town in North Carolina. He attends a public school 
full-time, and works in the fields during his summer break to help 
cover the costs of food, clothes, and school supplies for the family.
  Miguel was hired by a farm labor contractor to work on different 
farms planting sweet potatoes one day, topping tobacco the next. When 
asked which crop was harder work, Miguel said, ``tobacco, because you 
have to walk, and you have to use your hands all the time. It's really 
tiring.''
  It is tiring. By the time Miguel got home, he would have trouble 
walking because his legs and feet were so sore from working all day. 
Not only was 12-year Miguel physically overworked, he, like Calvin, 
also had to deal with frequent headaches, caused by nicotine poisoning, 
from working in the tobacco fields. He said, ``It was horrible. It felt 
like there was something in my head trying to eat it.''
  I am introducing legislation today, with Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island, Senator Feinstein and Senator Brown to take children like 
Calvin and Miguel out of the tobacco fields. Our bill would make it 
illegal to allow children under the age of 18 to handle tobacco plants 
or dried tobacco leaves.
  Currently, U.S. law prohibits children under the age of 18 from 
buying cigarettes . . . but allows children as young as 12 to work in 
tobacco fields. In most other jobs in the U.S., children are not 
allowed to work before the age of 15.
  Today, there are no specific restrictions protecting children from 
nicotine poisoning or other risks associated with tobacco farming in 
this country. The United States is the 4th leading tobacco producer in 
the world, behind China, Brazil, and India. Even Brazil and India 
prohibit children under 18 from working in tobacco production.
  It's time for the United States to adopt similar restrictions. Our 
children shouldn't be working long hours with a plant that makes them 
sick. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to pass S. 974, the 
Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act.
  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. 974

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TOBACCO-RELATED AGRICULTURE EMPLOYMENT OF 
                   CHILDREN.

       Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended--
       (1) in this first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``in any occupation, or (2)'' and inserting 
     ``in any occupation, (2)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, or 
     (3) any employee under the age of eighteen years has direct 
     contact with tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``other than 
     manufacturing and mining'' and inserting ``, other than 
     manufacturing, mining, and tobacco-related agriculture as 
     described in paragraph (3) of the first sentence of this 
     subsection,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Franken):
  S. 975. A bill to prohibit the award of Federal Government contracts 
to inverted domestic corporations, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 975

       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 ``American Business for 
     American Companies Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING CONTRACTS TO INVERTED 
                   DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.

       (a) Civilian Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 41, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 4713. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted 
       domestic corporations

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an executive agency may not 
     award a contract for the procurement of property or services 
     to--
       ``(A) any foreign incorporated entity that such head has 
     determined is an inverted domestic corporation or any 
     subsidiary of such entity; or
       ``(B) any joint venture if more than 10 percent of the 
     joint venture (by vote or value) is held by a foreign 
     incorporated entity that such head has determined is an 
     inverted domestic corporation or any subsidiary of such 
     entity.
       ``(2) Subcontracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     include in each contract for the procurement of property or 
     services awarded by the executive agency with a value in 
     excess of $10,000,000, other than a contract for exclusively 
     commercial items, a clause that prohibits the prime 
     contractor on such contract from--
       ``(i) awarding a first-tier subcontract with a value 
     greater than 10 percent of the total value of the prime 
     contract to an entity or joint venture described in paragraph 
     (1); or
       ``(ii) structuring subcontract tiers in a manner designed 
     to avoid the limitation in paragraph (1) by enabling an 
     entity or joint venture described in paragraph (1) to perform 
     more than 10 percent of the total value of the prime contract 
     as a lower-tier subcontractor.
       ``(B) Penalties.--The contract clause included in contracts 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide that, in the event 
     that the prime contractor violates the contract clause--
       ``(i) the prime contract may be terminated for default; and
       ``(ii) the matter may be referred to the suspension or 
     debarment official for the appropriate agency and may be a 
     basis for suspension or debarment of the prime contractor.
       ``(b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a foreign 
     incorporated entity shall be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a series of related 
     transactions)--
       ``(A) the entity completes before, on, or after May 8, 
     2014, the direct or indirect acquisition of--
       ``(i) substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation; or
       ``(ii) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially 
     all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a 
     domestic partnership; and
       ``(B) after the acquisition, either--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) 
     of the entity is held--

       ``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation; or
       ``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership; or

       ``(ii) the management and control of the expanded 
     affiliated group which includes the entity occurs, directly 
     or indirectly, primarily within the United States, as 
     determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and such expanded affiliated group 
     has significant domestic business activities.
       ``(2) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--A foreign incorporated entity described 
     in paragraph (1) shall not be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if after the acquisition the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the entity has substantial business 
     activities in the foreign country in which or under the law 
     of which the entity is created or organized when compared to 
     the total business activities of such expanded affiliated 
     group.
       ``(B) Substantial business activities.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall establish 
     regulations for determining whether an affiliated group has 
     substantial business activities for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), except that such regulations may not treat any group as 
     having substantial business activities if such group would 
     not be considered to have substantial business activities 
     under the regulations prescribed under section 7874 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on May 8, 2014.
       ``(3) Significant domestic business activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), an 
     expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business 
     activities if at least 25 percent of--
       ``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States;
       ``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States;
       ``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States; or
       ``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Determination.--Determinations pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as such 
     determinations are made for purposes of determining 
     substantial business activities under regulations referred to 
     in paragraph (2) as in effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by 
     treating all references in such regulations to `foreign 
     country' and `relevant foreign country' as references to `the 
     United States'. The Secretary of the

[[Page S2248]]

     Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) may issue regulations 
     decreasing the threshold percent in any of the tests under 
     such regulations for determining if business activities 
     constitute significant domestic business activities for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an executive agency may 
     waive subsection (a) with respect to any Federal Government 
     contract under the authority of such head if the head 
     determines that the waiver is--
       ``(A) required in the interest of national security; or
       ``(B) necessary for the efficient or effective 
     administration of Federal or Federally-funded--
       ``(i) programs that provide health benefits to individuals; 
     or
       ``(ii) public health programs.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--The head of an executive agency 
     issuing a waiver under paragraph (1) shall, not later than 14 
     days after issuing such waiver, submit a written notification 
     of the waiver to the relevant authorizing committees of 
     Congress and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives.
       ``(d) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     this section shall not apply to any contract entered into 
     before the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Task and delivery orders.--This section shall apply 
     to any task or delivery order issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this section pursuant to a contract entered into 
     before, on, or after such date of enactment.
       ``(3) Scope.--This section applies only to contracts 
     subject to regulation under the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       ``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `expanded 
     affiliated group', `foreign incorporated entity', `person', 
     `domestic', and `foreign' have the meaning given those terms 
     in section 835(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 395(c)).
       ``(2) Special rules.--In applying subsection (b) of this 
     section for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the 
     rules described under 835(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 395(c)(1)) shall apply.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 47 of title 41, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4712 
     the following new item:

``4713. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted domestic 
              corporations.''.

       (b) Defense Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted 
       domestic corporations

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may not award a 
     contract for the procurement of property or services to--
       ``(A) any foreign incorporated entity that such head has 
     determined is an inverted domestic corporation or any 
     subsidiary of such entity; or
       ``(B) any joint venture if more than 10 percent of the 
     joint venture (by vote or value) is owned by a foreign 
     incorporated entity that such head has determined is an 
     inverted domestic corporation or any subsidiary of such 
     entity.
       ``(2) Subcontracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     include in each contract for the procurement of property or 
     services awarded by the executive agency with a value in 
     excess of $10,000,000, other than a contract for exclusively 
     commercial items, a clause that prohibits the prime 
     contractor on such contract from--
       ``(i) awarding a first-tier subcontract with a value 
     greater than 10 percent of the total value of the prime 
     contract to an entity or joint venture described in paragraph 
     (1); or
       ``(ii) structuring subcontract tiers in a manner designed 
     to avoid the limitation in paragraph (1) by enabling an 
     entity or joint venture described in paragraph (1) to perform 
     more than 10 percent of the total value of the prime contract 
     as a lower-tier subcontractor.
       ``(B) Penalties.--The contract clause included in contracts 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide that, in the event 
     that the prime contractor violates the contract clause--
       ``(i) the prime contract may be terminated for default; and
       ``(ii) the matter may be referred to the suspension or 
     debarment official for the appropriate agency and may be a 
     basis for suspension or debarment of the prime contractor.
       ``(b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a foreign 
     incorporated entity shall be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a series of related 
     transactions)--
       ``(A) the entity completes before, on, or after May 8, 
     2014, the direct or indirect acquisition of--
       ``(i) substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation; or
       ``(ii) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially 
     all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a 
     domestic partnership; and
       ``(B) after the acquisition, either--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) 
     of the entity is held--

       ``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation; or
       ``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership; or

       ``(ii) the management and control of the expanded 
     affiliated group which includes the entity occurs, directly 
     or indirectly, primarily within the United States, as 
     determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and such expanded affiliated group 
     has significant domestic business activities.
       ``(2) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--A foreign incorporated entity described 
     in paragraph (1) shall not be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if after the acquisition the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the entity has substantial business 
     activities in the foreign country in which or under the law 
     of which the entity is created or organized when compared to 
     the total business activities of such expanded affiliated 
     group.
       ``(B) Substantial business activities.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall establish 
     regulations for determining whether an affiliated group has 
     substantial business activities for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), except that such regulations may not treat any group as 
     having substantial business activities if such group would 
     not be considered to have substantial business activities 
     under the regulations prescribed under section 7874 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on May 8, 2014.
       ``(3) Significant domestic business activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), an 
     expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business 
     activities if at least 25 percent of--
       ``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States;
       ``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States;
       ``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States; or
       ``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Determination.--Determinations pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as such 
     determinations are made for purposes of determining 
     substantial business activities under regulations referred to 
     in paragraph (2) as in effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by 
     treating all references in such regulations to `foreign 
     country' and `relevant foreign country' as references to `the 
     United States'. The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) may issue regulations decreasing the 
     threshold percent in any of the tests under such regulations 
     for determining if business activities constitute significant 
     domestic business activities for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may waive 
     subsection (a) with respect to any Federal Government 
     contract under the authority of such head if the head 
     determines that the waiver is required in the interest of 
     national security or is necessary for the efficient or 
     effective administration of Federal or Federally-funded 
     programs that provide health benefits to individuals.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--The head of an agency issuing a 
     waiver under paragraph (1) shall, not later than 14 days 
     after issuing such waiver, submit a written notification of 
     the waiver to the Committees on Armed Services and 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(d) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     this section shall not apply to any contract entered into 
     before the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Task and delivery orders.--This section shall apply 
     to any task or delivery order issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this section pursuant to a contract entered into 
     before, on, or after such date of enactment.
       ``(3) Scope.--This section applies only to contracts 
     subject to regulation under the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation and the Defense Supplement to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `expanded 
     affiliated group', `foreign incorporated entity', `person', 
     `domestic', and `foreign' have the meaning given those terms 
     in section 835(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 395(c)).
       ``(2) Special rules.--In applying subsection (b) of this 
     section for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the 
     rules described under 835(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 395(c)(1)) shall apply.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2337 
     the following new item:

``2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted domestic 
              corporations.''

       (c) Regulations Regarding Management and Control.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) shall,

[[Page S2249]]

     for purposes of section 4713(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 41, United 
     States Code, and section 2338(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 10, 
     United States Code, as added by subsections (a) and (b), 
     respectively, prescribe regulations for purposes of 
     determining cases in which the management and control of an 
     expanded affiliated group is to be treated as occurring, 
     directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States. 
     The regulations prescribed under the preceding sentence shall 
     apply to periods after May 8, 2014.
       (2) Executive officers and senior management.--The 
     regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall provide that 
     the management and control of an expanded affiliated group 
     shall be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly, 
     primarily within the United States if substantially all of 
     the executive officers and senior management of the expanded 
     affiliated group who exercise day-to-day responsibility for 
     making decisions involving strategic, financial, and 
     operational policies of the expanded affiliated group are 
     based or primarily located within the United States. 
     Individuals who in fact exercise such day-to-day 
     responsibilities shall be treated as executive officers and 
     senior management regardless of their title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr. Burr):
  S. 983. A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 to designate high priority corridors on the 
National Highway System in the State of North Carolina, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am introducing the Military Corridor 
Transportation Improvement Act of 2015, which would amend the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991 to 
begin the process toward eventually making the US-70 Corridor in North 
Carolina part of the Interstate system, and to help fully upgrade the 
corridor to interstate standards. My colleague, Senator Richard Burr 
has agreed to cosponsor the bill. In addition, Congressman G.K. 
Butterfield will be introducing a companion bill in the House of 
Representatives.
  The Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act of 2015 would 
designate the following as high priority: U.S. Route 117/Interstate 
Route 795 from U.S. Route 70 in Goldsboro, NC, to Interstate Route 40 
west of Faison, North Carolina; U.S. Route 70 from its intersection 
with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, NC, to the Port at Morehead City, 
NC.
  If the U.S. 70 corridor becomes part of the Interstate system, it 
would improve access to military bases in eastern North Carolina and 
the Port at Morehead City, as well as ease traffic congestion between 
Raleigh and eastern North Carolina.
  This bill helps advance the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation's Strategic Transportation Corridors Vision, which aims 
to provide North Carolina with a network of high priority corridors to 
promote economic development and enhance interstate commerce. Federal 
High Priority Corridors are eligible for federal funds to assist states 
in the coordination, planning, design and construction of nationally 
significant transportation corridors for the purposes of economic 
growth and international and interregional growth.
  In midst of a sluggish national economy, North Carolina has been a 
bright spot for growth and innovation, and one of the keys to 
sustaining that economic success is through continued investment in 
transportation, infrastructure, and our military. The Military Corridor 
Transportation Improvement Act is a true bipartisan effort to support 
North Carolina's military installations and complement the State's 25 
year transportation improvement plan, which in turn will generate 
economic development, provide a boost for local communities and create 
good-paying jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 987. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
deductions and credits relating to expenditures in connection with 
marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State law; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am here today standing up for the people 
of Oregon and recognizing their decision to legalize and regulate 
marijuana for recreational use in the State.
  Together with Senators Merkley and Bennet, I am introducing the Small 
Business Tax Equity Act, which will provide more equitable Federal tax 
treatment for small marijuana businesses who comply with State law. 
This comes after more than 56 percent of Oregonians voted for marijuana 
legalization. Congressman Blumenauer is introducing a companion bill in 
the House.
  Unlike its treatment of all other legal businesses, the tax code 
currently denies these marijuana businesses, legitimate businesses, the 
ability to deduct ordinary expenses. Expenses, such as employee pay and 
rent, that are essential to operating any successful small business.
  This is one piece of the equation as Federal tax inequalities for 
marijuana businesses extend beyond deductions. For example, other 
businesses are also eligible for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit for 
hiring veterans. Therefore the inability to make deductions, combined 
with other lost credits, often leads to these businesses paying an 
effective tax rate ranging from 65-75 percent; compared with other 
businesses who pay between 15-30 percent.
  This issue is not unique to Oregon. Oregon is one of four States, 
along with the District of Columbia, where voters have passed measures 
that permit the legal adult use and retail sale of marijuana. Oregon is 
one of 23 States, along with the District of Columbia, have passed laws 
allowing for the legal use of medical marijuana.
  Unfortunately, Federal law has not caught up with changing State 
laws, creating contradictions, and leaving these legal businesses in a 
tough position.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to fix this problem. Marijuana 
businesses operating legally under state law should be able to deduct 
ordinary business expenses just like any other businesses. Voters have 
legalized their product, now let's help create a more level playing 
field that recognizes their business operations.
  It is the right thing to do. It is only fair that Federal tax law 
respect the decision Oregonians, and citizens from other States and the 
District of Columbia, made at the polls.
  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. 987

       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 ``Small Business Tax Equity 
     Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS RELATING TO 
                   EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH MARIJUANA SALES 
                   CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``, unless such trade or business consists of 
     marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State law''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 988. A bill to promote minimum State requirements for the 
prevention and treatment of concussions caused by participation in 
school sports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in Illinois and all over the country 
thousands of high school students are participating in spring sports, 
including the national pastime: baseball and softball.
  As with any sports team, these students are training their growing 
bodies to compete in a worthy endeavor, but with that comes some risk. 
They put on helmets, they put on pads, but unfortunately some of them 
will still get hurt.
  Injuries are a part of all sports, but as we learn more about the 
long term effects of concussions and how frequently they are ignored, 
it is clear we have to step up our game to confront this health risk.
  The National Federation of State High School Associations estimates 
about 140,000 students who play high school sports have concussions 
every year. Sports are second only to motor

[[Page S2250]]

vehicle crashes as the leading cause of traumatic brain injury among 
people aged 15 to 24 years.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of children 
age 19 and younger being treated in ERs for traumatic brain injuries 
went from 153,373 in 2001 to 248,418 in 2009--a 60 percent increase.
  Some students stay in the game not recognizing the risks of playing 
hurt--especially when they have had a concussion. Many athletes do not 
know the signs and symptoms of concussion, which may cause many 
concussions to go undetected.
  A 2010 Government Accountability Office study found many sports-
related concussions go unreported. Athletes who continue to play while 
concussed are at risk for catastrophic injury if they sustain another 
concussion before recovering from the first one. This second injury can 
cause symptoms that can last for months and can even be fatal. Youth 
athletes are at the greatest risk from sports-related concussions 
because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to 
injury.
  According to the American Academy of Neurology, athletes of high 
school age and younger with a concussion should be managed more 
conservatively when it comes to returning to play because they take 
longer to recover than college athletes.
  Since 2009, states have started implementing legislation guiding 
return to play procedures for student athletes who have sustained a 
concussion.
  With a push from the National Football League, NFL, all 50 States and 
the District of Columbia have successfully passed some form of 
legislation with varying concussion safety measures.
  Illinois has been a leader on this issue and passed legislation in 
2011, recognizing the dangers associated with concussion. In Illinois, 
a student athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head 
injury in a practice or game is immediately removed from the game until 
he or she is cleared by a health care professional.
  This is a great step forward for Illinois, and I commend the Illinois 
High School Association and its support of this legislation for its 
work protecting student athletes.
  I would like to introduce the Protecting Student Athletes from 
Concussions Act, which would support the progress made by states like 
Illinois. The bill would, for the first time, set minimum State 
requirements for the prevention and treatment of concussions.
  The legislation requires schools to post information about 
concussions on school grounds and on school websites and adopt a ``when 
in doubt, sit it out'' policy.
  This policy requires that a student suspected of sustaining a 
concussion be removed from participation in the activity and prohibited 
from returning to play that day. They can return to play in future 
events after being evaluated and cleared by a qualified health care 
professional.
  The ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy is recommended by the 
American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of 
Neurology, which recommends that an athlete suspected of a concussion 
should not return to play the day of their injury--under any 
circumstance.
  According to the Center for Injury Research and Policy in Columbus, 
Ohio, more than 40 percent of young athletes return to play before they 
are fully recovered.
  Concussions are not always easily diagnosed, and symptoms that might 
indicate concussion don't always manifest themselves immediately. 
Athletes don't want to let down the team or the coach and are often 
eager to return to the game.
  So helping athletes, school officials, coaches and parents recognize 
the signs and symptoms of concussion can make all the difference in 
putting a player's safety above winning.
  This legislation will ensure that school districts have concussion 
management plans that educate students, parents, and school personnel 
about how to recognize and respond to concussions.
  It asks schools to adopt the ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy to 
be sure athletes are not put back in the game before they have 
recovered from an initial concussion.
  I am pleased that a variety of organizations are supporting this 
bill, including the NFL, NCAA, NHL, NBA, American College of Sports 
Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, among others.
  I look forward to working with the schools, athletic programs and 
others to build on the progress already made in protecting student 
athletes from concussions.
  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. 988

       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 Student Athletes 
     from Concussions Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Minimum Requirements.--Each State that receives funds 
     under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and does not meet the requirements 
     described in this section, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall, not later than the last day of the fifth 
     full fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``compliance deadline''), 
     enact legislation or issue regulations establishing the 
     following minimum requirements:
       (1) Local educational agency concussion safety and 
     management plan.--Each local educational agency in the State, 
     in consultation with members of the community in which such 
     agency is located, shall develop and implement a standard 
     plan for concussion safety and management that--
       (A) educates students, parents, and school personnel about 
     concussions, through activities such as--
       (i) training school personnel, including coaches, teachers, 
     athletic trainers, related services personnel, and school 
     nurses, on concussion safety and management, including 
     training on the prevention, recognition, and academic 
     consequences of concussions and response to concussions; and
       (ii) using, maintaining, and disseminating to students and 
     parents--

       (I) release forms and other appropriate forms for reporting 
     and record keeping;
       (II) treatment plans; and
       (III) prevention and post-injury observation and monitoring 
     fact sheets about concussion;

       (B) encourages supports, where feasible, for a student 
     recovering from a concussion (regardless of whether or not 
     the concussion occurred during school-sponsored activities, 
     during school hours, on school property, or during an 
     athletic activity), such as--
       (i) guiding the student in resuming participation in 
     athletic activity and academic activities with the help of a 
     multi-disciplinary concussion management team, which may 
     include--

       (I) a health care professional, the parents of such 
     student, a school nurse, relevant related services personnel, 
     and other relevant school personnel; and
       (II) an individual who is assigned by a public school to 
     oversee and manage the recovery of such student; and

       (ii) providing appropriate academic accommodations aimed at 
     progressively reintroducing cognitive demands on the student; 
     and
       (C) encourages the use of best practices designed to 
     ensure, with respect to concussions, the uniformity of safety 
     standards, treatment, and management, such as--
       (i) disseminating information on concussion safety and 
     management to the public; and
       (ii) applying uniform best practice standards for 
     concussion safety and management to all students enrolled in 
     public schools.
       (2) Posting of information on concussions.--Each public 
     elementary school and each public secondary school shall post 
     on school grounds, in a manner that is visible to students 
     and school personnel, and make publicly available on the 
     school website, information on concussions that--
       (A) is based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence (such as 
     information made available by the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention);
       (B) shall include information on--
       (i) the risks posed by sustaining a concussion;
       (ii) the actions a student should take in response to 
     sustaining a concussion, including the notification of school 
     personnel; and
       (iii) the signs and symptoms of a concussion; and
       (C) may include information on--
       (i) the definition of a concussion;
       (ii) the means available to the student to reduce the 
     incidence or recurrence of a concussion; and
       (iii) the effects of a concussion on academic learning and 
     performance.
       (3) Response to concussion.--If an individual designated 
     from among school personnel for purposes of this Act suspects 
     that a student has sustained a concussion (regardless of 
     whether or not the concussion occurred during school-
     sponsored activities, during school hours, on school 
     property, or during an athletic activity)--

[[Page S2251]]

       (A) the student shall be--
       (i) immediately removed from participation in a school-
     sponsored athletic activity; and
       (ii) prohibited from returning to participate in a school-
     sponsored athletic activity--

       (I) on the day such student is removed from such 
     participation; and
       (II) until such student submits a written release from a 
     health care professional stating that the student is capable 
     of resuming participation in school-sponsored athletic 
     activities; and

       (B) the designated individual shall report to the parent or 
     guardian of such student--
       (i) any information that the designated school employee is 
     aware of regarding the date, time, and type of the injury 
     suffered by such student (regardless of where, when, or how a 
     concussion may have occurred); and
       (ii) any actions taken to treat such student.
       (4) Return to athletics.--If a student has sustained a 
     concussion (regardless of whether or not the concussion 
     occurred during school-sponsored activities, during school 
     hours, on school property, or during an athletic activity), 
     before such student resumes participation in school-sponsored 
     athletic activities, the school shall receive a written 
     release from a health care professional, that--
       (A) states that the student is capable of resuming 
     participation in such activities; and
       (B) may require the student to follow a plan designed to 
     aid the student in recovering and resuming participation in 
     such activities in a manner that--
       (i) is coordinated, as appropriate, with periods of 
     cognitive and physical rest while symptoms of a concussion 
     persist; and
       (ii) reintroduces cognitive and physical demands on such 
     student on a progressive basis only as such increases in 
     exertion do not cause the reemergence or worsening of 
     symptoms of a concussion.
       (b) Noncompliance.--
       (1) First year.--If a State described in subsection (a) 
     fails to comply with subsection (a) by the compliance 
     deadline, the Secretary of Education shall reduce by 5 
     percent the amount of funds the State receives under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.) for the first fiscal year following the 
     compliance deadline.
       (2) Succeeding years.--If the State fails to so comply by 
     the last day of any fiscal year following the compliance 
     deadline, the Secretary of Education shall reduce by 10 
     percent the amount of funds the State receives under that Act 
     for the following fiscal year.
       (3) Notification of noncompliance.--Prior to reducing any 
     funds that a State receives under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in 
     accordance with this subsection, the Secretary of Education 
     shall provide a written notification of the intended 
     reduction of funds to the State and to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect civil or 
     criminal liability under Federal or State law.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Concussion.--The term ``concussion'' means a type of 
     mild traumatic brain injury that--
       (A) is caused by a blow, jolt, or motion to the head or 
     body that causes the brain to move rapidly in the skull;
       (B) disrupts normal brain functioning and alters the mental 
     state of the individual, causing the individual to 
     experience--
       (i) any period of observed or self-reported--

       (I) transient confusion, disorientation, or impaired 
     consciousness;
       (II) dysfunction of memory around the time of injury; or
       (III) loss of consciousness lasting less than 30 minutes; 
     or

       (ii) any 1 of 4 types of symptoms, including--

       (I) physical symptoms, such as headache, fatigue, or 
     dizziness;
       (II) cognitive symptoms, such as memory disturbance or 
     slowed thinking;
       (III) emotional symptoms, such as irritability or sadness; 
     or
       (IV) difficulty sleeping; and

       (C) can occur--
       (i) with or without the loss of consciousness; and
       (ii) during participation in any organized sport or 
     recreational activity.
       (2) Health care professional.--The term ``health care 
     professional''--
       (A) means an individual who has been trained in diagnosis 
     and management of traumatic brain injury in a pediatric 
     population; and
       (B) includes a physician (M.D. or D.O.) or certified 
     athletic trainer who is registered, licensed, certified, or 
     otherwise statutorily recognized by the State to provide such 
     diagnosis and management.
       (3) Local educational agency; state.--The terms ``local 
     educational agency'' and ``State'' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (4) Related services personnel.--The term ``related 
     services personnel'' means individuals who provide related 
     services, as defined under section 602 of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).
       (5) School-sponsored athletic activity.--The term ``school-
     sponsored athletic activity'' means--
       (A) any physical education class or program of a school;
       (B) any athletic activity authorized during the school day 
     on school grounds that is not an instructional activity;
       (C) any extra-curricular sports team, club, or league 
     organized by a school on or off school grounds; and
       (D) any recess activity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Ayotte, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Portman, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, 
        Ms. Warren, and Mr. Booker):
  S. 993. A bill to increase public safety by facilitating 
collaboration among the criminal justice, juvenile justice, veterans 
treatment services, mental health treatment, and substance abuse 
systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Comprehensive 
Justice and Mental Health Act, a bill I am introducing today with a 
number of my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with 
Representative Doug Collins, who is introducing this legislation in the 
House. This bipartisan, bicameral bill will improve outcomes for people 
with mental illness when they interact with the criminal justice 
system. The Judiciary Committee unanimously approved this bill by voice 
vote in the last Congress, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the committee to move this legislation forward to 
consideration by the full Senate.
  The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act is meant to address a 
very serious problem: The United States has 5 percent of the world's 
population but has 25 percent of the world's prison population--in 
large part because we have effectively criminalized mental illness. 
People with mental health conditions disproportionately are arrested 
and incarcerated, but instead of providing people with adequate access 
to mental health treatment, we let them fall through the cracks and 
languish in prison. As my home county--Hennepin County--Sheriff Rich 
Stanek put it, ``Local jails are the largest mental health facilities 
in the state of Minnesota,'' and this holds true across our Nation.
  Let's be clear. Using our criminal justice system as a substitute for 
a fully functioning mental health system doesn't make sense. It doesn't 
make sense for law enforcement officers who often put their lives at 
risk when they are called upon to intervene in a mental health crisis. 
It doesn't make sense for courts which are inundated with cases 
involving people with mental illness. It doesn't make sense for people 
who have mental health conditions who often would benefit from 
treatment and intensive supervision than from traditional 
incarceration. It certainly doesn't make sense for taxpayers who foot 
the bill for high incarceration costs and overcrowded correction 
facilities and who must pay again when these untreated mentally ill 
prisoners are released back into society often in much worse shape than 
when they were locked up.
  We can improve access to mental health services for people who come 
into contact with the criminal justice system, and we can give law 
enforcement officers the tools they need to identify and respond to 
mental health issues in the communities and the situations they 
confront.
  In 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the 
Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act--or MIOTCRA--
which supports innovative programs that bring together mental health 
and criminal justice agencies to address the unique needs of people 
with mental health conditions. Former Ohio Republican Senator Mike 
DeWine, who now serves as that State's Attorney General, was the 
original sponsor of MIOTCRA.
  The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act reauthorizes and 
improves MIOTCRA. Let me talk a little bit about how the programs 
supported by this legislation protect law enforcement officers and save 
lives. I will give one example.
  In 2013, I visited the police station in Columbia Heights, MN, a 
suburb of the Twin Cities. I talked with some of the officers who had 
been given crisis

[[Page S2252]]

intervention training for law enforcement officers to recognize when 
they are confronted or are entering a situation that involves someone 
who has a mental illness. The sheriff wasn't there that day, but the 
county attorney who was there on behalf of the sheriff said that the 
day after the sheriff had his training, he did not kill a guy he would 
otherwise have killed because he recognized what was going on. That was 
pretty dramatic.
  So I turned to the other officers there who had also had this crisis 
intervention training and said to a policewoman: Can you give me a more 
garden-variety example?
  She said: OK. About 3 months ago, I was on the street and I heard a 
woman screaming. I thought it was some domestic violence thing or 
something. I went to see what was going on, and she went over to a 
railing that if she had let go, she would have dropped to a playground 
below. She might not have killed herself, but she would have gotten 
very badly hurt. From my training, I realized I was in a situation with 
someone who was mentally ill, and I used my training to talk her back 
up. I spoke to the woman. She said she had been sexually abused as a 
child; that the perpetrator had left town and had left her life, but 
recently that man had come back.
  She said: I think I know where I can get help for you. And she got 
her access to some treatment.
  She said: A couple months later, I was working a street fair when 
this same woman came up to me, very calm, and said: You saved my life.
  I said: OK. This is your garden-variety story?
  She said: Yes, I use this training all the time. I will holster my 
gun maybe once in my career, but I use this all the time.
  Now, the grants currently available that would be reauthorized 
through the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act--which fund 
programs such as local crisis intervention training--are the only ones 
offered by the Justice Department that address mental health issues in 
the criminal justice system. So passing this legislation is critically 
important, and the bill would improve and expand upon the law.
  Here are some of the important things the bill does: It continues 
support for mental health courts and crisis intervention teams, both of 
which save lives and money. It includes new grant accountability 
measures and emphasizes the use of evidence-based practices that have 
been proven effective through empirical evidence. Our Presiding Officer 
is a physician, therefore a scientist, and therefore relies on 
empirical evidence. It authorizes investments in veterans treatment 
courts, which serve arrested veterans who have been arrested because 
they suffer from PTSD, substance addiction, which may be used to 
medicate their mental health or behavioral and other mental health 
conditions, other sometimes invisible wounds. It supports the 
development of programs, such as crisis intervention training, to train 
local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers how to recognize and 
respond appropriately to mental health crises. One of the new things 
the bill does is to support State and local efforts to identify people 
with mental health conditions at each point in the criminal justice 
system in order to appropriately direct them to mental health services.
  Our bill also increases the focus on corrections-based programs.
  I went to a prison in St. Cloud, MN, where they do intake in our 
State system. They said this crisis intervention training is incredibly 
important to them. They said: Do you watch TV on the weekends where 
they show prisoners, show the prison system, where you put on all the 
gear because some prisoner has gotten out of control and you have to go 
into the cell and tackle them? That could be avoided very often by 
understanding what is going on here. There is a lot of wear and tear 
when they have to go in like that. It is better to recognize what is 
going on and know how to deal with it.
  The bill also increases the focus on things such as transitional 
services that reduce recidivism rates and screening practices that 
identify inmates with mental health conditions.
  Finally, the bill gives local officials greater control over program 
participation eligibility. This again is for a program that already 
exists.
  The current system is broken. It doesn't serve the interests of 
people with mental illness, and it doesn't protect the safety of law 
enforcement personnel. As one Minnesota judge wrote:

       While [inmates with mental illness] are sitting in jail, 
     they often recede further into the depths of their illness. 
     They present a danger to themselves; they present a danger to 
     fellow inmates; and they present a danger to the . . . men 
     and women who run the jails.

  We have an obligation to ensure that people with mental illness 
receive the treatment and supervision they need and that the officers 
who put their lives on the line when they are called on to intervene in 
mental health crises are trained to respond in a way that protects 
their safety and that of their fellow officers and of the person with 
mental illness. This bill helps us better meet that obligation.
  I am very pleased to introduce this bill with a bipartisan group of 
lawmakers who are committed to improving the ways in which people with 
mental health conditions interact with the criminal justice system--in 
particular, my fellow lead sponsor, Senator John Cornyn, and 
Representative Doug Collins, who is leading this effort in the House.
  This legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2004, it 
was introduced by Michael DeWine, Republican from Ohio, in the Senate. 
In the last Congress, the predecessor of this bill had 39 Senate 
cosponsors, including 25 Democrats and 14 Republicans. The House 
companion bill had 55 cosponsors, including 24 Democrats and 31 
Republicans.
  As you can see, this has always been a bipartisan effort, and I am 
pleased to continue that tradition in this Congress. I would like to 
thank Senators Cornyn, Ayotte, Blunt, and Portman, as well as Senators 
Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, 
Warren, and Booker, for serving as original cosponsors of the 
Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act. I look forward to adding 
more cosponsors in the days to come.
  I would also like to recognize the many law enforcement, civil rights 
veterans, and mental health advocacy organizations--most notably the 
Council of State Governments--for standing in strong support of this 
legislation or its predecessor bill and advocating tirelessly for its 
enactment. More than 250 organizations endorsed this legislation in the 
previous Congress, including the American Legion, the Major Cities 
Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the 
National Sheriffs' Association, the National Alliance on Mental 
Illness, the National Association of Counties, and the Wounded Warrior 
Project, just to name a few.
  I look forward to working together with advocates and with my 
colleagues to get this bill enacted into law so that we can ease the 
burden of mental health problems on our criminal justice system and 
help a lot of people.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 1006. A bill to incentivize early adoption of positive train 
control, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Positive Train 
Control, a crash-avoidance rail safety system that can automatically 
stop trains in order to prevent impending collisions.
  The Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance a bill that 
would give railroads a 5-to-7 year extension of the deadline to 
implement this life-saving technology.
  In my view, a blanket extension is disastrous policy.
  Fortunately, the members of the Commerce Committee have signaled 
their willingness to consider improvements to this bill, and today I 
rise to offer such an improvement.
  This legislation, the Positive Train Control Safety Act, would 
provide a reasonable extension for the implementation of positive train 
control until 2018, on a case-by-case, year-by-year basis, for any 
railroad whose implementation plans were delayed by factors outside of 
their control.
  This provision mirrors language that already passed the Senate in 
2012 as

[[Page S2253]]

part of the transportation reauthorization bill with overwhelming 
support. It is a measured, realistic response to the delayed 
implementation we have witnessed. Overall, this bill strives to hold 
the railroads to their safety commitments.
  To understand the importance of PTC, we must revisit a terrible 
tragedy in my State of California, near Chatsworth.
  In 2008, a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with 
a Union Pacific freight train, killing 25 people and injuring 135 more.
  Testimony from the victims who survived the crash paint a gruesome 
picture of the aftermath. ``Severed limbs were strewn all about and 
blood was pooled everywhere.'' Victims' bodies, many torn to pieces, 
had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage.
  One passenger described coming across a man who had been crushed by 
an air vent: ``His mangled legs were all I could see, but his cries for 
help were very loud. Eventually he must have died, as he was calling 
out for his mother and then no more sounds. [. . .] I was trying to 
decide if I would die by fire or suffocation of smoke.''
  Many victims suffered traumatic brain injuries and those sitting at 
tables suffered ``horrible abdominal injuries that cannot be medically 
resolved.'' As the National Transportation Safety Board found in its 
investigation, this terrible tragedy could have been prevented if the 
Positive Train Control technology had been in place.
  Positive Train Control is a system for automatic train safety, which 
was originally recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board 
in 1970.
  Using GPS and wireless technology, Positive Train Control can 
automatically put the brakes on trains about to collide or derail. 
Positive Train Control can monitor trains and stop them if they enter 
the wrong track or are about to run red lights.
  In the Metrolink crash, it was later determined that the engineer was 
texting, causing him to miss a red signal and cause the deadly 
collision.
  PTC could have prevented this, as it could have forced the train to 
stop before running onto the same track as the oncoming freight train.
  This horrific accident became a rallying cry for Congress, which 
responded by passing the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008.
  This legislation mandated the widespread installation of PTC by the 
end of 2015.
  The railroad industry has fought PTC from start. Now, as the deadline 
rapidly approaches, railroads are again lobbying hard to delay 
installation. Many have not even begun installing PTC in any form--
something that is particularly disturbing to me.
  After its terrible accident, Metrolink in California has shown great 
leadership and plans to be the first railroad to be fully certified. 
Metrolink is on track do so by the federally-mandated deadline of 
December 31, 2015.
  Several other railroad companies in California are also on track to 
begin using PTC this year, in demonstration mode, on the path to final 
certification. These include the North County Transit District in San 
Diego and Caltrain in the Bay Area.
  In addition, new passenger rail services in California plan to 
operate with PTC from the first moment that they come on-line, 
including the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit line in 2016 and the first 
High Speed Rail segment in 2022.
  California is committed to safe and efficient rail. I believe my 
State demonstrates that railroads around the country can and should be 
expected to implement Positive Train Control as soon as is feasible, 
without unnecessary delay.
  The bill that the Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance 
is a no-strings-attached bill that would extend by 5 years the deadline 
by which PTC must be implemented.
  On top of that, it offers railroads an optional extension of an 
additional 2 years on a case-by-case basis. Extending the deadline 
through until the outset of 2023.
  Effectively, this is just kicking the can down road once more.
  I am deeply concerned about this blanket extension. First, it rewards 
those that have chosen delay over action. More troubling, it could have 
deadly consequences for Americans across the country.
  It has been 7 years since the collision at Chatsworth claimed 25 
lives, and 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board 
first recommended a system like Positive Train Control.
  Unnecessary delay is simply not acceptable.
  This is why I am introducing this bill today. I believe it will 
incentivize railroads to install PTC as quickly as possible.
  My bill allows case-by-case, single-year extensions through 2018 for 
railroads that have demonstrated good faith efforts to implement PTC. 
It also instructs the Department of Transportation to only grant 
extensions if the Secretary determines that a railroad's efforts to 
implement PTC were delayed due to circumstances beyond their control.
  In addition, the bill offers a number of other common-sense 
provisions relating to Positive Train Control requirements and railroad 
safety. These provisions reflect the lessons we have learned since the 
Rail Safety Improvement Act first required the implementation of PTC 
6\1/2\ years ago.
  These provisions include bolstering the transparency of railroads' 
implementation efforts, by requiring regular status reports; and 
ensuring trains carrying crude oil or ethanol run on tracks with PTC.
  The provision requires better coordination between the Federal 
Railroad Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to 
ensure adequate wireless communications availability.
  Requiring the Department of Transportation to evaluate the 
effectiveness of PTC at grade crossings.
  Improving opportunities for railroad employees to report safety 
deficiencies.
  Protecting employees in rail work zones.
  Improving inspection practices on commuter railroads.
  Riding our rails should not be a dangerous activity. It doesn't have 
to be. If we have the technology to prevent collisions, we must use it.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal.

                          ____________________