[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1222-1228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts:
  S. 262. A bill to repeal the excise tax on medical device 
manufacturers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to repeal the tax imposed on medical device manufacturers.
  As my colleagues know, this 2.3 percent sales tax imposed on medical 
device manufacturers--a tax that will ultimately be passed on to 
consumers--is part-and-parcel of the Federal health care reform bill 
that passed last Congress.
  Like others in this chamber, I am extremely concerned that this tax 
could threaten jobs in my State, reduce domestic investment in research 
and development and ultimately diminish access to life-saving medical 
devices for patients.
  Medical technology companies employ more than 375,000 workers in the 
United States. In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 225 medical 
device firms, which employ more than 20,000 workers, and contribute 
nearly $1 billion in payroll. Medical devices are one

[[Page 1223]]

of our State's top exports, contributing $6 billion to our State's 
economy.
  These are powerfully good numbers. These are the numbers that make my 
State tick, help drive our economy, and keep people working. I want to 
make certain that what happens in Washington does not reverse these 
numbers, does not undermine my State's ability to compete, and does not 
hamper our chances to grow and hire workers.
  Massachusetts' position as an industry leader, a hub of innovation 
and entrepreneurship must be preserved. That has been and will continue 
to be my focus in the U.S. Senate.
  So how do I intend to accomplish this?
  For starters it means working to eliminate the medical device tax, 
which I believe will diminish our ability to compete, will increase 
costs for consumers, and could result in our medical device and 
technology jobs being sent overseas, where the costs of labor and 
production are cheaper.
  The effort that I am spearheading--and that I ask my colleagues to 
join--eliminates the medical device tax in a way that does not add to 
the deficit. I propose eliminating this harmful tax--a tax that will 
stifle innovation, be passed on to consumers, and increase the cost of 
care--and propose that we offset the cost by using unobligated 
discretionary dollars. This is the same source of funding, the same 
offset, that 81 of my colleagues supported yesterday.
  As my colleagues know, I worked on an amendment that would repeal the 
medical device tax last Congress. I will continue this work because the 
harmful effects of this tax are the last thing Massachusetts needs--
more industry jobs lost, our workers at a competitive disadvantage.
  But the medical device tax doesn't just lead to job uncertainty, it 
leads to investment uncertainty as well, which results in private 
capital staying on the sidelines rather than being invested in 
Massachusetts based companies and their workers.
  The medical device tax, coupled with other provisions in the Federal 
health reform bill, increases the level of uncertainty at a time when 
businesses, consumers and investors are craving the exact opposite.
  For example, some medical devices are approved as combination 
products, both as medical devices and drugs and/or biologics. The 
Secretary has yet to determine how these medical devices will be 
captured under the law, how they will be taxed.
  I pledge to work with my Senate colleagues--and during the Medical 
Device User Fee Modernization Act reauthorization slated for next 
year--to ensure that the medical device companies whose products are 
approved as combination products by the FDA are not double-taxed by way 
of the medical device tax and the pharmaceutical tax.
  With the rolling implementation of the Federal health care reform 
bill, this Congress will provide many opportunities for me to protect 
the interests of and work on behalf of Massachusetts families, 
Massachusetts taxpayers, Massachusetts workers, and Massachusetts 
businesses.
  I hope my colleagues will join my efforts to find opportunities to 
correct what is wrong with the Federal health reform law--to protect 
innovation, the jobs, and the development and growth that can occur in 
a sector that is vitally important to our Nation's health.
  I know that a robust medical device sector translates into a 
healthier America--physically, economically, and socially. The same is 
true for Massachusetts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 270. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain Federal land to Deschutes County, Oregon; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills 
that will provide two important communities in rural Oregon with the 
means to promote their cultural history and their economic development 
opportunities. These are bills that I introduced in the last Congress 
and were reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
but were unfortunately not passed in the Senate. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.
  These bills both are intended to help leaders in rural communities in 
my State continue to grow their economies and make the most of the 
abundant resources surrounding their communities. As in many rural 
communities in my State and in many places in the Western United 
States, not much happens without the Federal Government's involvement. 
In fact, the Federal Government owns much of the land surrounding these 
small communities. While many of these lands are treasures, this high 
percentage of Federal land ownership sometimes limits the ability of 
local governments and civic leaders to solve problems and serve the 
public. I firmly believe the Federal Government can and should be an 
active partner in strengthening communities and improving a region's 
quality of life.
  That is why I am re-introducing these two pieces of legislation 
today. These bills--both passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee in the last Congress with minor modifications--
demonstrate the possibilities that can come when the Federal Government 
partners with proactive, innovative communities to tackle challenging 
economic conditions and the pattern of Federal land ownership.
  My first bill, the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, would convey two 
parcels of property to Deschutes County, Oregon and a third parcel to 
the City of La Pine. The bill directs the transfer of Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, lands to Deschutes County and the City of La Pine to 
enable the small town of La Pine to develop rodeo and equestrian 
facilities, expand a sewage treatment site, and develop the library or 
other public facilities.
  La Pine has a set of unique challenges but the town's incorporation 
has brought a feeling in the community that good things can happen if 
they work together to make their town as good as it can possibly be.
  My bill proposes the transfer of 150 acres of BLM land contiguous to 
the La Pine city limit to enable construction of public equestrian and 
rodeo facilities that have become increasingly important in La Pine. In 
addition, the land will provide a location for development of ball 
fields, parks, and recreation facilities, which can be developed as the 
town grows and budgets allow.
  My bill also directs the transfer of approximately 750 acres of BLM 
lands to Deschutes County for the purpose of expanding the town's 
wastewater treatment operation. For several years this has been the 
City's top priority for a land transfer under the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act. Although the BLM began an administrative transfer it was 
not completed, limiting this small community's ability to be 
competitive for state and federal economic stimulus funds. This project 
is too important to let languish.
  Perhaps the most important issue affecting water quality in Deschutes 
County involves the threat to groundwater and the Deschutes River from 
household septic systems in southern Deschutes County, the region 
around La Pine. This project directly reduces nitrate loading into 
south county groundwater in two ways. First, by enabling expansion of 
the District service boundary to residential areas where septic systems 
are generating elevated groundwater nitrate levels; and second, by 
closing the current location for spreading treated effluent, over a 
relatively high groundwater area, to this new location which is judged 
not to threaten groundwater. That is why I am introducing legislation 
today to make sure this transfer moves forward.
  The third parcel that would be transferred under this legislation 
would convey approximately 10 acres to the City of La Pine. This is a 
parcel right in the heart of downtown La Pine. The City is exploring 
its use for expansion of library space or using it as an open space.
  My second bill, S. 271, the Wallowa Forest Service Compound 
Conveyance Act would convey an old Forest Service

[[Page 1224]]

Ranger Station compound to the City of Wallowa, OR. In Wallowa County, 
this Forest Service compound was built by the Civilian Conservation 
Corps in the 1930's. For many years it was the center of town and this 
site continues to represent the natural and cultural history of one of 
Eastern Oregon's most beautiful communities. The City of Wallowa, along 
with County Commissioners, the local arts organizations, and a broad 
group of community leaders intend to restore this important example of 
Pacific Northwest rustic architecture and tribute to bygone times, 
making a valuable community interpretive center at this site. The 
conveyance of this property will allow the community to move forward 
with this project. The community worked hard to list the Ranger Station 
on the National Register of Historic Places, and ownership by the City 
will allow this coalition to restore the buildings and again develop a 
vibrant community center. Oregon Public Broadcasting aired a segment 
depicting an early 20th century railroad logging community--a 
significant part of the rich and diverse history and traditions that 
will be preserved and celebrated as this Forest Service Compound is 
developed as an interpretive center.
  I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community leaders 
who have worked to build their communities and develop these projects. 
They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my State.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and 
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota):
  S. 274. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand access to medication therapy management services under the 
Medicare prescription drug program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to reintroduce the 
Medication Therapy Management, MTM, Empowerment Act of 2011, with my 
colleagues from Minnesota, Senator Franken, from Ohio, Senator Brown, 
and from South Dakota, Senator Johnson.
  A recent analysis conducted by the New England Healthcare Institute 
estimates that the overall cost of medication nonadherence is as much 
as $290 billion per year. According to a recent article published in 
the New England Journal of Medicine, over $100 billion is spent 
annually on avoidable hospitalizations because patients do not take 
their medications correctly.
  Not only does nonadherence cost our system billions of dollars, 
nonadherence to medication regimens also affects the quality of life 
for seniors and may lead to early death. The elderly typically take 
many more prescription medicines than the general population and 
therefore are at greater risk for problems associated with improper use 
of medications. For example, the same New England Journal of Medicine 
article I just referenced found that better adherence to 
antihypertensive treatment alone could prevent 89,000 premature deaths 
in the U.S. annually.
  With as much as one half of all patients in the U.S. not following 
their doctors' orders regarding their medications, medication therapy 
management could help reduce some of the wasted health care costs in 
our system.
  North Carolina has implemented some very successful MTM programs.
  The Asheville Project, which focuses on diabetes, asthma, and 
cardiovascular disease, has seen improved health outcomes and 
significant savings among city employees since it began in 1997. For 
example, in the Asheville Project's diabetes MTM Project, they have 
seen a decrease in medical costs of between $1,622 to $3,356 per 
patient per year; a decrease in insurance claims of $2,704 per patient 
in year one and a $6,502 decrease in year five; a 50 percent decrease 
in use of sick days; and increased productivity gains estimated at 
$18,000 annually.
  In 2007, the North Carolina Health and Wellness Trust Fund Commission 
launched an innovative statewide program, Checkmeds NC, to provide MTM 
services to North Carolina seniors. During the program's first year, 
more than 15,000 North Carolina seniors and 285 pharmacists 
participated. A total of 31,000 seniors have participated since 2007. 
The seniors bring all of their prescriptions, over-the-counter 
medicines, vitamins and supplements to the pharmacy to be thoroughly 
reviewed in a one-on-one session. The pharmacist follows up and 
educates the patient about his or her medication regimen. The program 
has saved an estimated $34 million to date, and countless health 
problems have been avoided.
  During consideration of health care reform, I was pleased to have 
successfully secured language in the bill that built off these North 
Carolina models and implemented MTM nationally for seniors suffering 
from two or more chronic conditions.
  The bill I am reintroducing today takes MTM one step further. 
Specifically, this bill would expand MTM eligibility to seniors with 
any chronic condition that accounts for high spending in our health 
care system, such as heart failure and diabetes. Currently, only 12.9 
percent of Part D beneficiaries are eligible under the MTM criteria for 
multiple chronic conditions. However, of those, more than 85 percent 
have chosen to participate in the benefit. Clearly this program is very 
popular and widely utilized by those who are already eligible. By 
expanding eligibility to more seniors, MTM will certainly result in 
Medicare savings.
  The bill also ensures access to MTM for seniors at a pharmacy or with 
a qualified health care provider of their choice.
  To ensure pharmacists and health care providers are able to provide 
MTM to seniors, this bill requires that they are appropriately 
reimbursed for their time and service. This provision will permit 
pharmacies and other health care providers to spend considerable time 
and resources evaluating a person's drug routine and educating them on 
proper usage--all critical components of a successful MTM program.
  Finally, this bill would establish standards for data collection to 
evaluate and improve the Part D MTM benefit.
  The value of MTM is widely known and discussed. I am proud that North 
Carolina is a leader in this arena. Expansion of MTM to more seniors 
will no doubt improve their overall health, while at the same time 
reducing waste in our health care system.
  I urge my collegues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 278. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land located in 
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious 
business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we 
experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, 
near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 
6,000 acres.
  We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of 
hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from 
local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often 
risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do 
everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who 
serve them.
  One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire 
District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is 
critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being 
able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up 
trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years 
now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire 
District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.
  The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on 
these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the 
lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. 
The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns,

[[Page 1225]]

an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under 
the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the 
public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire 
threats.
  The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith 
effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative 
means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire 
District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by 
expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy 
the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.
  However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident 
that legislation is required to resolve the situation.
  To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar 
Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the 
same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
in the last Congress.
  Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District 
offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land 
amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the 
communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of 
Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National 
Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire 
stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.
  The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of 
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.
  This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the 
Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands 
bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire 
district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve 
an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this 
bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.
  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. 278

       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 ``Sugar Loaf Fire Protection 
     District Land Exchange Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Sugar Loaf 
     Fire Protection District of Boulder, Colorado.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) the parcel of approximately 1.52 acres of land in the 
     National Forest that is generally depicted on the map 
     numbered 1, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District 
     Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009; and
       (B) the parcel of approximately 3.56 acres of land in the 
     National Forest that is generally depicted on the map 
     numbered 2, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District 
     Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009.
       (3) National forest.--The term ``National Forest'' means 
     the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests located in the State 
     of Colorado.
       (4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the parcel of approximately 5.17 acres of non-Federal land in 
     unincorporated Boulder County, Colorado, that is generally 
     depicted on the map numbered 3, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire 
     Protection District Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated 
     November 12, 2009.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, if 
     the District offers to convey to the Secretary all right, 
     title, and interest of the District in and to the non-Federal 
     land, and the offer is acceptable to the Secretary--
       (1) the Secretary shall accept the offer; and
       (2) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land, 
     the Secretary shall convey to the District all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
       (b) Applicable Law.--Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) shall apply to 
     the land exchange authorized under subsection (a), except 
     that--
       (1) the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment in 
     excess of 25 percent of the value of the Federal land; and
       (2) as a condition of the land exchange under subsection 
     (a), the District shall--
       (A) pay each cost relating to any land surveys and 
     appraisals of the Federal land and non-Federal land; and
       (B) enter into an agreement with the Secretary that 
     allocates any other administrative costs between the 
     Secretary and the District.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The land exchange 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to--
       (1) valid existing rights; and
       (2) any terms and conditions that the Secretary may 
     require.
       (d) Time for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the intent 
     of Congress that the land exchange under subsection (a) shall 
     be completed not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (e) Authority of Secretary To Conduct Sale of Federal 
     Land.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), if the 
     land exchange under subsection (a) is not completed by the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary may offer to sell to the District the Federal 
     land.
       (2) Value of federal land.--The Secretary may offer to sell 
     to the District the Federal land for the fair market value of 
     the Federal land.
       (f) Disposition of Proceeds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit in the fund 
     established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the 
     ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a) any amount received by the 
     Secretary as the result of--
       (A) any cash equalization payment made under subsection 
     (b); and
       (B) any sale carried out under subsection (e).
       (2) Use of proceeds.--Amounts deposited under paragraph (1) 
     shall be available to the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation and until expended, for the acquisition of land 
     or interests in land in the National Forest.
       (g) Management and Status of Acquired Land.--The non-
     Federal land acquired by the Secretary under this section 
     shall be--
       (1) added to, and administered as part of, the National 
     Forest; and
       (2) managed by the Secretary in accordance with--
       (A) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the ``Weeks 
     Law'') (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and
       (B) any laws (including regulations) applicable to the 
     National Forest.
       (h) Revocation of Orders; Withdrawal.--
       (1) Revocation of orders.--Any public order withdrawing the 
     Federal land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 
     public land laws is revoked to the extent necessary to permit 
     the conveyance of the Federal land to the District.
       (2) Withdrawal.--On the date of enactment of this Act, if 
     not already withdrawn or segregated from entry and 
     appropriation under the public land laws (including the 
     mining and mineral leasing laws) and the Geothermal Steam Act 
     of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal land is 
     withdrawn until the date of the conveyance of the Federal 
     land to the District.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 279. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a 
study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp 
Hale as a unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp 
Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp 
Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is 
an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it 
deserves to be recognized and protected.
  This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II 
and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central 
Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and 
mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the 
Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed 
Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high-
altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley 
suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was 
located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training 
boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.
  In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat 
Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were 
trained at

[[Page 1226]]

Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a 
variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.
  Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central 
Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in 
guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous 
country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place 
a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of 
those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a 
moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.
  In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the 
lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the 
White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left 
over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.
  Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 
1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the 
suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit 
of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the 
significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation 
during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale 
for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the 
Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the 
Chinese occupation of Tibet.
  I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first 
introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly 
cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last 
Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators 
to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on 
the Senate floor.
  Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our 
country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of 
their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in 
supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more 
success in passing this legislation in this Congress.
  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. 279

       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 ``Camp Hale Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND 
                   FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING CAMP HALE AS A UNIT 
                   OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the National Park Service, 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall complete 
     a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine--
       (1) the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp 
     Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System; and
       (2) the methods and means for the protection and 
     interpretation of Camp Hale by the National Park Service, 
     other Federal, State, or local government entities or private 
     or nonprofit organizations.
       (b) Study Requirements.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
     study in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 
     (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which 
     funds are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate a report containing--
       (1) the results of the study; and
       (2) any recommendations of the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. EFFECT OF STUDY.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect valid existing rights or 
     the exercise of such rights, including--
       (1) all interstate water compacts in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act (including full development of 
     any apportionment made in accordance with the compacts);
       (2) water rights decreed at the Camp Hale site or flowing 
     within, below, or through the Camp Hale site;
       (3) water rights in the State of Colorado;
       (4) water rights held by the United States;
       (5) the management and operation of any reservoir, 
     including the storage, management, release, or transportation 
     of water; and
       (6) the ability, subject to compliance with lawful existing 
     local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements, to 
     construct and operate that infrastructure determined 
     necessary by those with decreed water rights to develop and 
     place to beneficial use such rights.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 280. A bill to provide for flexibility and improvements in 
elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child 
Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined 
in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our 
legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine 
and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind 
Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while 
retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability.
  Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity 
to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with 
the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I 
commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation 
issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our 
task force included members from every county in our State, and had 
superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, 
business leaders, former State legislators, special education 
specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of 
Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education 
and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and 
Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that 
brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the 
task force's work.
  After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final 
report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory 
changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need 
for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local 
schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing 
Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant 
statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine 
and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, 
not just Maine.
  First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in 
the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education 
standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our 
legislation would permit states to use additional models to more 
accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically, 
it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the 
progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit 
the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on 
the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a 
``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of 
students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable 
to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school 
would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates 
improved student achievement according to these additional models. We 
would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to 
give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. 
While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, 
our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater 
flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided 
that they are consistent with the principle of improved student 
performance.

[[Page 1227]]

  Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice 
regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to 
identify and work with a particular group of students before being 
identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to 
allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The 
changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts 
and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend 
to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation 
addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all 
schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the 
Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting 
this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line 
as necessary.
  Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in 
some schools, special education students fear that they are being 
blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our 
legislation would allow the members of a special education student's 
Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment 
for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance 
on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative 
change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many 
times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student 
to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or 
she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred 
for special education services precisely because they cannot meet 
grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best 
test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement 
to the act while still ensuring accountability.
  Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers 
of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet 
the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the 
current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural 
schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on 
special education teachers who work with students on a variety of 
subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers 
are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided 
additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining 
requirements.
  While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its 
report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation 
is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense 
modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine. 
Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each 
and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every 
classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every 
school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization 
process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 289. A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the FISA Amendments Act of 
2008 until December 31, 2013, and for other purposes; read the first 
time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 25, I introduced S. 149, 
the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring 
provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority 
to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' 
``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. S. 149 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Today, I am reintroducing that legislation with a new, identical 
bill. This new bill, just as S. 149 would do, will extend these three 
authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 
2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence 
collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so 
they, too, last until the end of 2013.
  The sole purpose of reintroducing the measure is to begin the process 
under Senate rule XIV to place the reintroduced extension bill on the 
Senate calendar. The three provisions of FISA will sunset in a little 
more than 3 weeks. One of those weeks is a congressional recess. By 
placing the extension bill on the Senate calendar, we will, at least, 
be one procedural step closer to acting.
  On January 28, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National 
Intelligence James Clapper wrote to urge Congress to grant a 
reauthorization of sufficient duration to provide intelligence and law 
enforcement agencies with reasonable certainty and predictability 
concerning the tools available to them.
  The FISA sunsets have most recently been the subject of two short-
term extensions: a 2-month extension from December 31, 2009 to February 
28, 2010, and then a 1-year extension from that date to February 28, 
2011.
  In their January 28 letter, the DNI and the Attorney General 
expressed their concern about the devolution of FISA sunsets ``into a 
series of short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne 
by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying out their 
missions.''
  The letter states that ``S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 
2011, would avoid these difficulties by reauthorizing the three 
expiring provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions 
of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset next year. 
We look forward to working with you to ensure the prompt enactment of 
this or similar legislation.''
  Yesterday, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees also received 
a classified report from the Attorney General and the DNI on the 
important intelligence collection made possible by authority that is 
subject to the approaching sunset. The Department of Justice and the 
Office of the DNI have asked for our assistance in making this 
classified report available, in a secure setting, directly and 
personally to any Member of the Senate. We did so for a similar report 
a year ago when Congress considered the last sunset extension.
  Each Senator is invited to read this classified report in the 
Intelligence Committee's offices in 211 Hart Senate Office Building. 
The Attorney General and DNI have offered to make Justice Department 
and intelligence community personnel available to meet with any Member 
who has questions. Our Intelligence Committee staff is also prepared to 
meet with Members. Vice Chairman Chambliss and I are sending a Dear 
Colleague letter to each Senator conveying this invitation.
  In concluding, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate and House to 
heed the Attorney General's and DNI's concern about the uncertainty 
created by short-term extensions. The 3-year extension that my 
legislation proposes will give our law enforcement and intelligence 
officials the tools and certainty they need in protecting the Nation. 
It will align the several sunsets so that Congress can review FISA more 
comprehensively in 2013. In setting that date Congress will wisely be 
separating that review of FISA from the debates of a presidential 
election.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leaders Reid, Pelosi, and 
     McConnell:
       In the current threat environment, it is imperative that 
     our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools 
     they need

[[Page 1228]]

     to protect our national security. The Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (``FISA'') is a critical tool that has been 
     used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection 
     operations. Three vital provisions of FISA are scheduled to 
     expire on February 28, 2011: section 206 of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act, which provides authority for roving surveillance of 
     targets who take steps that may thwart FISA surveillance; 
     section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides expanded 
     authority to compel production of business records and other 
     tangible things with the approval of the FISA court; and 
     section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act, which provides the authority under FISA to 
     target non-United States persons who engage in international 
     terrorism or activities in preparation therefor, but are not 
     necessarily associated with an identified terrorist group 
     (the so-called ``lone wolf'' amendment).
       It is essential that these intelligence tools be 
     reauthorized before they expire, and we are committed to 
     working with Congress to ensure the speedy enactment of 
     legislation to achieve this result.
       We also urge Congress to grant a reauthorization of 
     sufficient duration to provide those charged with protecting 
     our nation with reasonable certainty and predictability. When 
     Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, it included a three-year 
     sunset on these authorities. While we welcome Congressional 
     oversight into the use of these tools, Congress did not 
     contemplate that this sunset would devolve into a series of 
     short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne 
     by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying 
     out their missions.
       S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, would avoid 
     these difficulties by reauthorizing the three expiring 
     provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions 
     of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset 
     next year. We look forward to working with you to ensure the 
     prompt enactment of this or similar legislation.
       The Administration also remains open to proposals that 
     enhance protections for civil liberties and privacy while 
     maintaining the effectiveness of these and other intelligence 
     collection tools.
       Finally, we are prepared to provide additional information 
     to Members concerning these critical authorities in a 
     classified setting, as we did in connection with the previous 
     reauthorization of the expiring provisions.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that 
     there is no objection to this letter from the perspective of 
     the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Clapper,
                                Director of National Intelligence.
                                              Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 291. A bill to repeal the sunset provisions in the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and other related 
provisions and permanently reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act; read the 
first time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 291

       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 ``USA PATRIOT Reauthorization 
     Act of 2011.''.

     SEC. 2. USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT 
                   REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISIONS.

       Section 102(b) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C. 
     1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS 
                   AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.

       Section 6001(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 1801 
     note) is repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
        DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Paul, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Thune, 
        Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Crapo, and Ms. Ayotte):
  S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be 
balanced; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 5

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.
       ``Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of 
     the gross domestic product of the United States for the 
     calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal 
     year.
       ``Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the 
     limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any 
     fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each 
     House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific 
     excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the 
     gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar 
     year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.
       ``Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the 
     rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-
     thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a 
     roll call vote.
       ``Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds 
     of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide 
     for such an increase by a roll call vote.
       ``Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and 
     a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this 
     article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by 
     one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No 
     court of the United States or of any State shall order any 
     increase in revenue to enforce this article.
       ``Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce 
     this article by appropriate legislation.
       ``Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total 
     outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except 
     those for repayment of debt principal.
       ``Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning 
     with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification 
     by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States.''.

                          ____________________