[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.'

                          ____________________