[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 74 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2357-S2365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin,
and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 1443. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit
treatment of student loan payments as elective deferrals for purposes
of employer matching contributions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I have introduced the Retirement
Parity for Student Loans Act. This legislation would permit employers
to make matching contributions to workers under 401(k) and similar
types of retirement plans as if a worker's student loan payments were
salary reduction contributions to the retirement plan. This legislation
will help workers who cannot afford to both save for retirement and pay
off their student loan debt by providing them with employer
contributions to build their retirement savings. This legislation is a
common sense fix to the rules that govern employer-sponsored retirement
plans and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask
unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of bill was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
S. 1443
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 ``Retirement Parity for
Student Loans Act''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS AS ELECTIVE
DEFERRALS FOR PURPOSES OF MATCHING
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 401(m)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at
the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) subject to the requirements of paragraph (13), any
employer contribution made to a defined contribution plan on
behalf of an employee on account of a qualified student loan
payment.''.
(b) Qualified Student Loan Payment.--Paragraph (4) of
section 401(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Qualified student loan payment.--The term `qualified
student loan payment' means a payment made by an employee in
repayment of a qualified education loan (as defined in
section 221(d)(1)) incurred by the employee to pay qualified
higher education expenses, but only--
``(i) to the extent such payments in the aggregate for the
year do not exceed an amount equal to--
``(I) the limitation applicable under section 402(g) for
the year (or, if lesser, the employee's compensation (as
defined in section 415(c)(3)) for the year), reduced by
``(II) the elective deferrals made by the employee for such
year, and
``(ii) if the employee certifies to the employer making the
matching contribution under this paragraph that such payment
has been made on such loan.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `qualified higher
education expenses' means the cost of attendance (as defined
in section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997) at an eligible educational
institution (as defined in section 221(d)(2)).''.
(c) Matching Contributions for Qualified Student Loan
Payments.--Subsection
[[Page S2358]]
(m) of section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14),
and by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new
paragraph:
``(13) Matching contributions for qualified student loan
payments.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (4)(A)(iii),
an employer contribution made to a defined contribution plan
on account of a qualified student loan payment shall be
treated as a matching contribution for purposes of this title
if--
``(i) the plan provides matching contributions on account
of elective deferrals at the same rate as contributions on
account of qualified student loan payments,
``(ii) the plan provides matching contributions on account
of qualified student loan payments only on behalf of
employees otherwise eligible to receive matching
contributions on account of elective deferrals,
``(iii) under the plan, all employees eligible to receive
matching contributions on account of elective deferrals are
eligible to receive matching contributions on account of
qualified student loan payments, and
``(iv) the plan provides that matching contributions on
account of qualified student loan payments vest in the same
manner as matching contributions on account of elective
deferrals.
``(B) Treatment for purposes of nondiscrimination rules,
etc.--
``(i) Nondiscrimination rules.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(iii), subsection (a)(4), and section 410(b),
matching contributions described in paragraph (4)(A)(iii)
shall not fail to be treated as available to an employee
solely because such employee does not have debt incurred
under a qualified education loan (as defined in section
221(d)(1)).
``(ii) Student loan payments not treated as plan
contribution.--Except as provided in clause (iii), a
qualified student loan payment shall not be treated as a
contribution to a plan under this title.
``(iii) Matching contribution rules.--Solely for purposes
of meeting the requirements of paragraph (11)(B) or (12) of
this subsection, or paragraph (11)(B)(i)(II), (12)(B), or
(13)(D) of subsection (k), a plan may treat a qualified
student loan payment as an elective deferral or an elective
contribution, whichever is applicable.
``(iv) Actual deferral percentage testing.--In determining
whether a plan meets the requirements of subsection
(k)(3)(A)(ii) for a plan year, the plan may apply the
requirements of such subsection separately with respect to
all employees who receive matching contributions described in
paragraph (4)(A)(iii) for the plan year.
``(C) Employer may rely on employee certification.--The
employer may rely on an employee certification of payment
under paragraph (4)(D)(ii).''.
(d) Simple Retirement Accounts.--Paragraph (2) of section
408(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) Matching contributions for qualified student loan
payments.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to the rules of clause (iii), an
arrangement shall not fail to be treated as meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (A)(iii) solely because under
the arrangement, solely for purposes of such subparagraph,
qualified student loan payments are treated as amounts
elected by the employee under subparagraph (A)(i)(I) to the
extent such payments do not exceed--
``(I) the applicable dollar amount under subparagraph (E)
(after application of section 414(v)) for the year (or, if
lesser, the employee's compensation (as defined in section
415(c)(3)) for the year), reduced by
``(II) any other amounts elected by the employee under
subparagraph (A)(i)(I) for the year.
``(ii) Qualified student loan payment.--For purposes of
this subparagraph--
``(I) In general.--The term `qualified student loan
payment' means a payment made by an employee in repayment of
a qualified education loan (as defined in section 221(d)(1))
incurred to pay qualified higher education expenses, but only
if the employee certifies to the employer making the matching
contribution that such payment has been made on such a loan.
``(II) Qualified higher education expenses.--The term
`qualified higher education expenses' has the same meaning as
when used in section 401(m)(4)(D).
``(iii) Applicable rules.--Clause (i) shall apply to an
arrangement only if, under the arrangement--
``(I) matching contributions on account of qualified
student loan payments are provided only on behalf of
employees otherwise eligible to elect contributions under
subparagraph (A)(i)(I), and
``(II) all employees otherwise eligible to participate in
the arrangement are eligible to receive matching
contributions on account of qualified student loan
payments.''.
(e) 403(b) Plans.--Subparagraph (A) of section 403(b)(12)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The fact that the employer offers
matching contributions on account of qualified student loan
payments as described in section 401(m)(13) shall not be
taken into account in determining whether the arrangement
satisfies the requirements of clause (ii) (and any regulation
thereunder).''.
(f) 457(b) Plans.--Subsection (b) of section 457 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``A plan which is established and maintained
by an employer which is described in subsection (e)(1)(A)
shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
this subsection solely because the plan, or another plan
maintained by the employer which meets the requirements of
section 401(a), provides for matching contributions on
account of qualified student loan payments as described in
section 401(m)(13).''.
(g) Regulatory Authority.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(or such Secretary's delegate) shall prescribe regulations
for purposes of implementing the amendments made by this
section, including regulations--
(1) permitting a plan to make matching contributions for
qualified student loan payments, as defined in sections
401(m)(4)(D) and 408(p)(2)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as added by this section, at a different frequency than
matching contributions are otherwise made under the plan,
provided that the frequency is not less than annually;
(2) permitting employers to establish reasonable procedures
to claim matching contributions for such qualified student
loan payments under the plan, including an annual deadline
(not earlier than 3 months after the close of each plan year)
by which a claim must be made; and
(3) promulgating model amendments which plans may adopt to
implement matching contributions on such qualified student
loan payments for purposes of sections 401(m), 408(p),
403(b), and 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made for years beginning after
December 31, 2021.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coons):
S. 1451. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
implement policies to end preventable maternal, newborn, and child
deaths globally; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my
friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, to reintroduce
the Reach Every Mother and Child Act of 2021. Our legislation would
make it the policy of the United States to lead an effort to end
preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, and young children in the
developing world by 2030.
For years Sen. Coons and I have led efforts to ensure robust funding
for the U.S. Agency for International Development's maternal and child
health programing, which have formed the backbone of the U.S.
commitment to help end preventable child and maternal deaths globally.
Due in part to American leadership and generosity, many lives have
already been saved. Nevertheless, far too many mothers, newborns, and
young children under the age of five continue to succumb to disease and
malnutrition that could easily be prevented. The impacts of COVID-19
are exacerbating these gaps and disproportionately affecting the
world's most vulnerable, undermining decades of progress.
Nearly 300,000 women die annually from causes related to pregnancy
and childbirth. In addition, a significant proportion of deaths of
children under the age of five occur in the first 28 days after birth,
with newborns accounting for nearly 50 percent of all under-five
deaths. In 2019, 5.2 million children under the age of five died from
mainly preventable and treatable diseases.
Our bill aims to reach these mothers and children with simple,
proven, cost-effective interventions that we know will help them
survive. A concentrated effort could end preventable maternal and child
deaths worldwide by the year 2030, but continued U.S. leadership and
support from the international community are critical to success.
To achieve this ambitious goal, our bill would require the
implementation of a strategy focused on bringing to scale the highest
impact, evidence-based interventions, with a focus on country and
community ownership. These interventions would be specific to each
country's needs and include support for the most vulnerable
populations. We do not have to guess at what interventions will work--
the reality is that thousands of children die each day of conditions we
know today how to treat.
These life-saving interventions include clean birthing practices,
vaccines, nutritional supplements, hand-washing with soap, and other
basic needs that remain elusive for far too many women and children in
developing countries. This must change.
In addition, our bill proposes the establishment a Maternal and Child
Survival Coordinator at USAID who would focus on implementing the five-
year strategy and verifying that the most
[[Page S2359]]
effective interventions are being scaled up in target countries. The
bill would improve government efficiency across several agencies that
would collaborate with the Coordinator to identify and promote the most
effective interventions to end preventable maternal and child deaths
globally.
To promote transparency and greater accountability, our bill also
would also require detailed public reporting on progress toward
implementing the strategy.
Other bipartisan initiatives, such as the successful President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which was started by
President George W. Bush, demonstrate that results driven interventions
can turn the tide for global health challenges. Applying lessons
learned from past initiatives, our bill would provide the focus and the
tools necessary to accelerate progress toward ending preventable
maternal and child deaths.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coons and me in supporting this
legislation that will save the lives of mothers and children around the
world.
______
By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1459. A bill to provide for the protection of and investment in
certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Protecting
Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California (PUBLIC)
Lands Act.'' This measure would increase protections for over 1 million
acres of Federal public lands throughout northwest California, the
Central Coast, and Los Angeles, including nearly 600,000 acres of new
wilderness, more than 583 miles of new wild and scenic rivers, and the
expansion of an existing national monument by more than 100,000 acres.
This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of
current and future generations and help protect California's
communities from the impacts of the climate crisis.
The ``PUBLIC Lands Act'' is grounded in the best conservation
principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses
disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is
based on science.
In Northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, recreation and conservation areas, and forest
and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase
wildfire resiliency in Northwest California, where the impacts of the
climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires.
Along the Central Coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000
acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo
Plain National Monument as wilderness, and establish a 400-mile long
Condor National Recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to
Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the Central
Valley's abundant biodiversity, including threatened and endangered
species.
In Southern California, the bill would expand the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument and establish a new National Recreation
Area along the foothills and San Gabriel River corridor. Los Angeles
County is one of the most park-poor, densely populated, and polluted
regions in the Nation--this legislation would begin to rectify that by
providing increased outdoor opportunities for all Angelenos, ensuring
that disadvantaged communities can more easily benefit from our public
lands.
I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water
rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill does not
create any new public lands--rather, it protects existing public lands
through the high-value designation as wilderness in order to keep these
lands as untouched and wild as possible.
The science is becoming increasingly clear that we must conserve 30
percent of our lands and waters by 2030 in our efforts to solve the
climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. This
legislation would provide a down payment on that goal, helping
California and the Biden Administration meet our 30x30 goals and
reverse the worst effects of climate change.
The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities to park-
poor communities. It is imperative that as we conserve our public
lands, we do so in a way that also reverses racial and economic
disparities in access to nature and parks.
This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and
elected officials, community groups, and businesses and local
outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the
legislative process over decades.
I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions,
Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for
championing these bills in the House.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``PUBLIC
Lands Act'' as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Casey, Mr. Rounds,
and Ms. Smith):
S. 1458. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to encourage
the planting of cover crops following prevented planting, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. THUNE. 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. 1458
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 ``Cover Crop Flexibility Act
of 2021''.
SEC. 2. COVER CROPS PLANTED DUE TO PREVENTED PLANTING.
(a) In General.--Section 508A of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)--
(i) by striking ``collect an indemnity'' and inserting the
following: ``collect--
``(I) an indemnity'';
(ii) in subclause (I) (as so designated), by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) an indemnity payment that is equal to the prevented
planting guarantee for the acreage for the first crop, if the
second crop--
``(aa) is an approved cover crop that--
``(AA) will be planted for use as animal feed or bedding
that is hayed, grazed (rotationally, adaptively, or at equal
to or less than the carrying capacity), or chopped outside of
the primary nesting season; or
``(BB) will not be harvested, such as a crop with an
intended use of being left standing or cover; and
``(bb) cannot be harvested for grain or other uses
unrelated to livestock forage or conservation, as determined
by the Corporation.''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``a second crop described in item (aa) or
(bb) of paragraph (1)(B)(ii)(II), or'' before ``double
cropping''; and
(ii) by striking ``make an election under paragraph
(1)(B)'' and inserting ``makes an election under paragraph
(1)(B)(ii)(I)''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``(f) Prevented Planting Coverage Factors.--For producers
that plant cover crops following prevented planting, the
Corporation may provide separate prevented planting coverage
factors that include preplanting costs and the cost of cover
crop seed.''.
(b) Research and Development.--Section 522(c) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(20) Cover crops.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall carry out research
and development, or offer to enter into 1 or more contracts
with 1 or more qualified persons to carry out research and
development, regarding a policy to insure crops on fields
that regularly utilize cover crops.
``(B) Requirements.--Research and development under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
``(i) a review of prevented planting coverage factors
described in section 508A(f) and an evaluation of whether to
include cover crop seed costs and costs related to grazing in
the calculation of a factor;
``(ii) the extent to which cover crops reduce the risk of
subsequent prevented planting;
``(iii) the extent to which cover crops make crops more
resilient to or otherwise reduce the risk of loss resulting
from natural disasters such as drought;
``(iv) the extent to which increased regularity of using
cover crops or interactions with other practices such as
tillage or rotation affects risk reduction;
``(v) whether rotational, adaptive, or other prescribed
grazing of cover crops can maintain or improve risk
reduction; and
``(vi) how best to account for any reduced risk and provide
a benefit to producers using
[[Page S2360]]
cover crops through a separate plan or policy of insurance.
``(C) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall make
available on the website of the Corporation, and submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate, a report that--
``(i) describes the results of the research and development
carried out under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) includes any recommendations with respect to those
results.''.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection
bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November
1 haying and grazing date for cover crops.
Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve
soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality,
and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals
can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide
forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date
on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on
prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the
year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early
winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before
they can be used for hay and grazing.
The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator
Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze
cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1
in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to
benefit from these crops.
Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a
role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy,
but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting
the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life,
as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not
government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges.
Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New
Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide
recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by
2030.
I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who
are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to
meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome
regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing
everything they can to promote the health of their land.
There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to
manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already
frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some
believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of
land, and somehow the government will manage it properly.
Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They
assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and
productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is
the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing
socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how
the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the
opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a
working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's
proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of
pretty much every aspect of American life.
Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to
believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot
more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we
should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and
effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our
environmental problems by giving the government more than it can
handle.
I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that
promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy
burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to
advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the
American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will
continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental
gains over the well-being of the American people
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Portman, and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 1469. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
to meet the needs of homeless children, youth, and families, and honor
the assessments and priorities of local communities; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce bipartisan
legislation that would better align the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) homeless assistance programs with other federal
agencies' homelessness programs and provide greater flexibility to
local communities to address youth homelessness.
According to the latest estimate from HUD, there are over 580,466
homeless individuals in the United States. This number includes an
estimated 161,548 individuals in California, including children and
youth.
However, if you compare that with data from other federal agencies, a
different story is told.
For example, the Department of Education identified 1.3 million
students experiencing homelessness during the 2018-2019 school year.
This includes an estimated 271,528 public school students in
California, almost double the total number of homeless individuals
(including adults) identified by HUD in California.
The disparity between the homeless numbers reported by HUD and the
Department of Education are not just mere statistical differences; they
have real consequences.
For instance, only those children and families considered
``homeless'' under HUD's definition are eligible for vital homeless
assistance programs. Those children and families who do not meet HUD's
definition will therefore continue to fall through the cracks.
Our bill would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve
extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying
in motels or in doubled-up situations because they simply have nowhere
else to go.
These children are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking
because they are often not served by a case manager, and therefore
remain hidden from potential social service providers.
Communities that receive Federal funding through HUD's competitive
application process are also unable to prioritize or direct resources
to help children and families who don't meet the current definition of
``homelessness.''
In addition to fixing the issue with competing federal definitions of
homelessness, our bill would provide communities with new flexibility
to use Federal funds the way they see fit to address local needs. Our
bill requires HUD to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use
separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety
and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to
safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations.
Finally, our bill would improve transparency and give a better sense
of the homeless crisis facing our country by requiring HUD to include
data on all categories of homelessness in its Point in Time count and
Annual Homeless Assessment Report.
Mr. President, we must do more to meet the needs of homeless children
and youth and stop the vicious cycle of poverty and chronic
homelessness. As the ongoing coronavirus pandemic threatens to push
more children, youth, and families into homelessness and continues to
pose potentially lethal health risks, it is imperative that we do not
impose more barriers for these children and families to access
services. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will
ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they
need.
I would like to thank Senator Rob Portman for his support on this
critical issue and for joining me in introducing this bill, and I
implore our colleagues to support the ``Homeless Children and Youth
Act.''
[[Page S2361]]
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Brown, Mr. Van Hollen,
and Mrs. Gillibrand):
S. 1474. A bill to reaffirm the importance of workers; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Today, I am joined by Senators Warren, Brown, Van Hollen,
and Gillibrand to introduce legislation to ensure that at least one
Federal Reserve Governor has demonstrated primary experience in
supporting or protecting the rights of workers.
Our legislation is not the first to require a member of the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors to have a particular area of expertise.
Indeed, as part of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization
Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 93-4 and was signed into law
on January 12, 2015, Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act to
require at least one of the seven Federal Reserve Governors to be an
individual ``with demonstrated primary experience working in or
supervising community banks.'' Our legislation would ensure that
workers get the very same representation that community bankers already
have on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
As we all are aware, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of stable
prices and maximum employment. Our bill is designed to better ensure
that future Boards of Governors continue the current Board's focus on
its full employment mandate as evidenced by its explicit
acknowledgement last August in its revised Statement on Longer-Run
Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy that ``maximum employment is a
broad-based and inclusive goal.'' This reflects the Fed's
``appreciation for the benefits of a strong labor market, particularly
for many in low-and moderate-income communities,'' with policy
decisions to be informed by the Board's ``assessments of the shortfalls
of employment from its maximum level'' rather than by ``deviations from
its maximum level'' as in its previous statement. While this may not
seem like a huge difference, it is reflective of the Board's ``view
that a robust job market can be sustained without causing an outbreak
of inflation.''
To put it more simply, this current Federal Reserve ``will remain
highly focused on fostering as strong a labor market as possible for
the benefit of all Americans,'' and our legislation seeks to ensure
that future Federal Reserve Boards will continue to do the same.
COVID-19 has shown us just how essential workers are to our economy
and our physical well-being. We all know grocery store workers, nurses,
firefighters, delivery workers, and other workers in both the public
and private sectors who, despite the risk to their own health, have
been literally holding together the fabric of our society and economy
so that we can make it safely to the other side of this public health
emergency. As such, they too deserve at least one member of the Board
of Governors with demonstrated primary experience in supporting or
protecting the rights of workers. I thank the AFL-CIO, Columbia
University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, MIT Professor
and Former International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Simon Johnson,
and Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin for their support. and urge
our colleagues to join in pushing to enact this legislation.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Ms. Sinema):
S. 1475. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the issuance
of permits under title V of that Act for certain emissions from
agricultural production; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. THUNE. 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. 1475
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 ``Livestock Regulatory
Protection Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITTING CERTAIN EMISSIONS FROM
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
Section 502(f) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661a(f)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as clauses
(i) through (iii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(2) in the undesignated matter following clause (iii) (as
so redesignated), by striking ``Approval of'' and inserting
the following:
``(B) No relief of obligation.--Approval of'';
(3) by striking the subsection designation and heading and
all that follows through ``No partial'' in the matter
preceding clause (i) (as so redesignated) and inserting the
following:
``(f) Prohibitions.--
``(1) Partial permit programs.--
``(A) In general.--No partial''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Certain emissions from agricultural production.--No
permit shall be issued under a permit program under this
title for any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or
methane emissions resulting from biological processes
associated with livestock production.''.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from
Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York
reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans
remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2
years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag.
There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and
released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost
between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat
that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.
To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in
2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would
be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A
massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this,
but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get
the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear
idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is
notable for its complete lack of specificity.
It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single
building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10
years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but
it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish
them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to
accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to
accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.
So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental
and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the
equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't
think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's
authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a
paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government
supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American
life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the
environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have
nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic
growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like
groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.
Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging
potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I
am introducing today.
There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the
environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this
tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food
website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are
wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add
new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef
but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.
First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences
for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the
demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of
course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a
government program to help
[[Page S2362]]
them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to
abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program,
and there is no reason they should have to.
Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef
production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S.
emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing
pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it
has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to
significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef
even more wrong-headed.
Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with
my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago
with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of
the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the
environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple.
It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing
emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of
livestock.
We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly
clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills
on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader
and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent
bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final
bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long-
term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by
overzealous environmental crusaders.
I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an
outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the
original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the
outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is
likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water
clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural
resources.
I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and
have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development
for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills
to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean
energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully
recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and
other biofuels.
The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would
fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here
and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update
its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S.
Department of Energy's GREET model.
I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel
registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the
advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn
kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely
used in States like California.
My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative
biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the
research and facility investments they have made and improve their
operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our
Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential
market.
Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor
the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it
easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon
markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process
we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.
So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but
I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes
account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good
for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our
environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for
our environment and good for American families.
That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and
Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version
of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment
and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the
2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest
performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the
Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving
soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for
farmers.
(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.''
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 1495. A bill to promote international press freedom, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. A vibrant and independent media and public
access to accurate information are critical to the functioning of any
democracy. A free press is so important that our Founding Fathers
explicitly guaranteed that right in the First Amendment of our
Constitution, and the United Nations defined press freedom as a
fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But today--as democracies worldwide are facing growing challenges from
authoritarian leaders, censorship, and disinformation campaigns--
foreign journalists are facing unprecedented dangers that put their
profession, and their lives, at risk.
The nature of threats against journalists is shifting. While the
number of journalists killed in war zones continues to drop, the number
of journalists killed or targeted in countries at peace continues at
historically high levels. Fifty journalists were killed because of
their work in 2020, and 68% of these deaths occurred outside of
conflict zones. Most of those who perpetrate attacks are never held
accountable. Worldwide, there was complete impunity in 86% of cases of
murdered journalists occurring between September 2019 and August 2020.
In addition, the number of journalists imprisoned remains at
historically high levels, with nearly 400 behind bars as of December
2020. And authoritarian governments are using the COVID-19 pandemic as
a pretext for censorship, restricting reporters' freedom of movement,
and harassing them.
The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Graham marks
World Press Freedom Day by honoring journalists not only with words but
with action. It builds on the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act,
signed into law in 2009, to take concrete steps to ensure the wellbeing
of journalism as a profession, and of individual journalists
themselves. This legislation creates a new fund for programs to help
keep foreign journalists safe, whether they are operating in dangerous
environments or need to be re-located for their safety, and authorizes
$30 million for this purpose. It uses existing funding to help nations
prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes against journalists
overseas. It creates a new non-immigrant visa category to allow
journalists in danger to come to the United States. And it creates a
Coordinator for International Press Freedom at the State Department to
serve as a focal point for advancing the right to freedom of the press
and freedom of expression abroad.
I am proud to join Senator Graham in this effort to ensure that the
free press that we value so highly in the United States is protected
and promoted around the world, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the
Senate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 1496. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to fund demonstration projects to improve recruitment and retention of
child welfare workers; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. As we work to support American families,
stimulate the economy, bolster small
[[Page S2363]]
businesses, protect health care workers, and sustain our industries,
investing in child welfare is imperative to supporting these efforts.
The coronavirus pandemic has further highlighted that the development
of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is
central to improving outcomes for children and families across the
United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a
child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with
which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be
physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent
studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child
welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child
welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work
benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high
rates of turnover and professionals who are more susceptible to burnout
and compassion fatigue.
For the past 15 years, child welfare turnover rates have been
estimated between 20 percent and 40 percent. In 2017, Virginia reported
a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate
of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of
turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and
families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving
an agency.
More needs to be done to ensure that individuals pursuing careers in
child welfare receive appropriate training and support to improve the
sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Maintaining a
high-performing, engaged, and committed workforce is vital to providing
families with the quality supports they need to stabilize, reunify, and
thrive. Research suggests that positive child welfare outcomes depend
largely on the capacity and competence of the child welfare workforce.
This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare
Workforce Support Act with my colleague Senator Baldwin. This bill
directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for
child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to
recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration
program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for
reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of
individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds
will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist
child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with
infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of
services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing
resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the
successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will
assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in
this space.
I hope that as the Senate considers reauthorizing the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare
Workforce Support Act and recognize the vital role that child welfare
workers play to improve outcomes and protect our most vulnerable
infants and children.
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 1497. A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
to ensure protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer youth and their families; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. According to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment
compared to non-LGBTQ youth. Because of limited exposure to mandated
reporters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the unfortunate truth
is that the maltreatment that some youth experience have experienced
has gone unrecognized and underreported. Research prior to the pandemic
demonstrated that LGBTQ youth were more likely to experience physical
abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual
peers. Risk for harm of vulnerable youth also extends far beyond
physical safety. LGBTQ youth are at a disproportionately high risk for
depression, suicidal ideation and suicide, and self-harming behaviors,
with rates of attempted suicide of around 2 to 10 times those of peers.
These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth
entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT
young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the
fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk
harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This
overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises
concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space.
Additional research is needed to understand the risk of abuse among
LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. This
information will yield invaluable information to be used in developing
targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood
experiences of LGBTQ individuals.
This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act
with my colleague Senator Baldwin. Our bill amends the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act and calls for HHS and other federal
agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect
LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of
victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands
current practices around demographic information collection and
reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to
invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the
unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals
experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task
forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide
greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home
that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare
system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to
develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to
decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth, and will be pivotal in our
understanding of abuse and neglect following the pandemic.
I hope that as the Senate moves to reauthorize the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act
to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by
LGBTQ youth and the best ways to protect them.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal):
S. 1500. A bill to permit Amtrak to bring civil actions in Federal
district court to enforce the right set forth in section 24308(c) of
title 49, United States Code, which gives intercity and commuter rail
passenger transportation preference over freight transportation in
using a rail line, junction, or crossing; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
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. 1500
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 ``Rail Passenger Fairness
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
(1) Congress created Amtrak under the Rail Passenger
Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-158).
(2) Amtrak began serving customers on May 1, 1971, taking
over the operation of most intercity passenger trains that
private, freight railroads were previously required to
operate. In exchange for assuming these passenger rail
operations, Amtrak was given access to the national rail
network.
(3) In return for relief from the obligation to provide
intercity passenger service, railroads over which Amtrak
operated (referred to in this section as ``host railroads'')
were expected to give Amtrak passenger trains preference over
freight trains when using the national rail network.
(4) In 1973, Congress passed the Amtrak Improvement Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-146), which gives intercity and commuter
rail passenger transportation preference over freight
[[Page S2364]]
transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing.
This right, which is now codified as section 24308(c) of
title 49, United States Code, states, ``Except in an
emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger
transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over
freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or
crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this
subsection. A rail carrier affected by this subsection may
apply to the Board for relief. If the Board, after an
opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5,
decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail
passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality
of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board
shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on
reasonable terms.''.
(5) Many host railroads have ignored the law referred to in
paragraph (4) by refusing to give passenger rail the priority
to which it is statutorily entitled and giving freight
transportation the higher priority. As a result, Amtrak's on
time performance on most host railroads is poor, has declined
between 2014 through 2019, and continues to decline.
(6) According to Amtrak, 6,500,000 customers on State-
supported and long-distance trains arrived at their
destination late during fiscal year 2019. Nearly 70 percent
of these delays were caused by host railroads, amounting to a
total of 3,200,000 minutes. The largest cause of these delays
was freight train interference, which accounted for more than
1,000,000 minutes of delay for Amtrak passengers, or
approximately 2 years, because host railroads chose to give
freight trains priority.
(7) Poor on-time performance wastes taxpayer dollars.
According to a 2019 report by Amtrak's Office of Inspector
General, a 5 percent improvement of on-time performance on
all Amtrak routes would result in $12,100,000 in cost savings
to Amtrak in the first year. If on-time performance on long-
distance routes reached 75 percent for a year, Amtrak would
realize an estimated $41,900,000 in operating cost savings,
with a one-time savings of $336,000,000 due to a reduction in
equipment replacement needs.
(8) Historical data suggests that on-time performance on
host railroads is driven by the existence of an effective
means to enforce Amtrak's preference rights:
(A) Two months after the date of the enactment of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(division B of Public Law 110-432), which included provisions
for the enforcement of these preference rights, was enacted,
the on-time performance of long-distance trains improved from
56 percent to 77 percent and Class I freight train
interference delays across all routes declined by 40 percent.
(B) One year after such date of enactment, freight train
interference delays had declined by 54 percent and the on-
time performance of long-distance trains reached 85 percent.
(C) In 2014, after some of the provisions in the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 related to
enforcement of preference were ruled unconstitutional by a
D.C. Circuit Court, long-distance train on-time performance
declined from 72 percent to 50 percent, and freight train
interference delays increased 59 percent.
(D) The last time long-distance trains achieved an on-time
rate of more than 80 percent in a given month was February
2012.
(9) As a result of violations of Amtrak's right to
preference, Amtrak has been consistently unable on host
railroad networks to meet its congressionally mandated
mission and goals, which are codified in section 24101 of
title 49, United States Code (relating to providing on-time
and trip-time competitive service to its passengers).
(10) Amtrak does not have an effective mechanism to enforce
its statutory preference right in order to fulfill its
mission and goals. Only the Attorney General can bring a
civil action for equitable relief in a district court of the
United States to enforce Amtrak's preference rights.
(11) In Amtrak's entire history, the only enforcement
action initiated by the Attorney General was against the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1979.
(12) Congress supports continued authority for the Attorney
General to initiate an action, but Amtrak should also be
entitled to bring a civil action before a Federal district
court to enforce its statutory preference rights.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZE AMTRAK TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE
IT PREFERENCE RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--Section 24308(c) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended, by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding sections 24103(a) and 24308(f), Amtrak
shall have the right to bring an action for equitable or
other relief in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia to enforce the preference rights granted
under this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24103 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and section
24308(c)'' before ``, only the Attorney General''.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Blumenthal,
Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Brown, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Warren, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 1501. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the rules relating to inverted corporations; to the Committee on
Finance.
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. 1501
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 ``Stop Corporate Inversions
Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO RULES RELATING TO INVERTED
CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 7874 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Inverted Corporations Treated as Domestic
Corporations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(4), a
foreign corporation shall be treated for purposes of this
title as a domestic corporation if--
``(A) such corporation would be a surrogate foreign
corporation if subsection (a)(2) were applied by substituting
`80 percent' for `60 percent', or
``(B) such corporation is an inverted domestic corporation.
``(2) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of this
subsection, a foreign corporation shall be treated as an
inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a
series of related transactions)--
``(A) the entity completes 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, and such
expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business
activities.
``(3) Exception for corporations with substantial business
activities in foreign country of organization.--A foreign
corporation described in paragraph (2) 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. For purposes of subsection
(a)(2)(B)(iii) and the preceding sentence, the term
`substantial business activities' shall have the meaning
given such term under regulations in effect on January 18,
2017, except that the Secretary may issue regulations
increasing the threshold percent in any of the tests under
such regulations for determining if business activities
constitute substantial business activities for purposes of
this paragraph.
``(4) Management and control.--For purposes of paragraph
(2)(B)(ii)--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall 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.
``(B) Executive officers and senior management.--Such
regulations 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.
``(5) Significant domestic business activities.--For
purposes of paragraph (2)(B)(ii), an expanded affiliated
group has significant domestic business activities if at
least 25 percent of--
``(A) the employees of the group are based in the United
States,
``(B) the employee compensation incurred by the group is
incurred with respect to employees based in the United
States,
``(C) the assets of the group are located in the United
States, or
[[Page S2365]]
``(D) the income of the group is derived in the United
States,
determined in the same manner as such determinations are made
for purposes of determining substantial business activities
under regulations referred to in paragraph (3) as in effect
on January 18, 2017, but applied by treating all references
in such regulations to `foreign country' and `relevant
foreign country' as references to `the United States'. The
Secretary 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.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clause (i) of section 7874(a)(2)(B) of such Code is
amended by striking ``after March 4, 2003,'' and inserting
``after March 4, 2003, and before May 8, 2014,''.
(2) Subsection (c) of section 7874 of such Code is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting
``subsections (a)(2)(B)(ii) and (b)(2)(B)(i)''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or (b)(2)(A)'' after ``(a)(2)(B)(i)''
in subparagraph (B);
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or (b)(2)(B)(i), as
the case may be,'' after ``(a)(2)(B)(ii)'';
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection
(a)(2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(2)(B)(ii) and
(b)(2)(B)(i)''; and
(D) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or inverted domestic
corporation, as the case may be,'' after ``surrogate foreign
corporation''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after May 8, 2014.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1507. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to promulgate certain limitations with respect to
pre-production plastic pellet pollution, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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. 1507
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 the ``Plastic Pellet Free Waters
Act''.
SEC. 2. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR WASTEWATER, SPILLS, AND
RUNOFF FROM PLASTIC POLYMER PRODUCTION
FACILITIES, PLASTIC MOLDING AND FORMING
FACILITIES, AND OTHER POINT SOURCES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE TRANSPORT AND PACKAGING OF PLASTIC
PELLETS OR OTHER PRE-PRODUCTION PLASTIC
MATERIALS.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') shall
promulgate a final rule to ensure that--
(1) the discharge of plastic pellets or other pre-
production plastic materials (including discharge into
wastewater and other runoff) from facilities regulated under
part 414 or 463 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), is
prohibited;
(2) the discharge of plastic pellets or other pre-
production plastic materials (including discharge into
wastewater and other runoff) from a point source (as defined
in section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1362)) that makes, uses, packages, or transports those
plastic pellets and other pre-production plastic materials is
prohibited; and
(3) the requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) are
reflected in--
(A) all wastewater, stormwater, and other permits issued by
the Administrator and State-delegated programs under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1342) to facilities and other point sources (as defined in
section 502 of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1362)) that make, use,
package, or transport plastic pellets or other pre-production
plastic materials, as determined by the Administrator, in
addition to other applicable limits and standards; and
(B) all standards of performance promulgated under section
312(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1322(p)) that are applicable to point sources (as defined in
section 502 of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1362)) that make, use,
package, or transport plastic pellets or other pre-production
plastic materials, as determined by the Administrator.
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cassidy,
Mr. Casey, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Manchin):
S. 1521. A bill to require certain civil penalties to be transferred
to a fund through which amounts are made available for the Gabriella
Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program at the National Institutes
of Health, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. While cancer is the leading cause of death
by disease among children past infancy, childhood cancer and other rare
pediatric diseases remain poorly understood. According to the National
Cancer Institute, an estimated 15,590 children and adolescents under
the age of 19 will be diagnosed with cancer, and 1,780 will die of the
disease in the United States in 2021.
This is why I am pleased to be introducing the Gabriella Miller Kids
First Research Act 2.0 with Senators Jerry Moran, Mark R. Warner, and
Bill Cassidy. The legislation provides a new source of funding for the
National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Gabriella Miller Kids First
Pediatric Research Program (Kids First) by redirecting penalties
collected from pharmaceutical, cosmetic, supplement, and medical device
companies that break the law to pediatric and childhood cancer
research. The bill is named in honor of Gabriella Miller, a Leesburg,
Virginia resident who died from a rare form of brain cancer at the age
of 10. Gabriella was an activist and worked to raise support for
research into childhood diseases like cancer until her death in October
of 2013.
The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Program has supported
critical research into pediatric cancer and structural birth defects
and has focused on building a pediatric data resource combining genetic
sequencing data with clinical data from multiple pediatric cohorts. The
Gabriella Miller Kids First Data Resource Center is helping to advance
scientific understanding and discoveries around pediatric cancer and
structural birth defects and has sequenced nearly 20,000 samples thus
far. While Congress has appropriated $12.6 million for the Kids First
program annually since Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, this legislation would
make additional funding streams available to appropriators to further
support pediatric and childhood cancer research.
Gabriella Miller was a passionate activist and fighter. In 2014, I
was a strong champion of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act,
which established the Ten-Year Pediatric Research Initiative at the NIH
and authorized $12.6 million per fiscal year through FY23. We honor
Gabriella's memory by continuing her work in making sure pediatric
disease research is a priority. This bipartisan legislation would
provide a critical source of funding to improve research in pediatric
cancer and diseases, and I urge my colleagues to support it.'
____________________