[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2067-2071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Graham, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
        Blunt, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Barrasso, 
        Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, 
        and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 360. A bill to reduce the deficit by establishing discretionary 
spending caps for non-security spending; to the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are trying to resolve one of the great 
problems I am sure my colleagues are sensitive to; that is, the 
infrastructure of this country. Today we have two witnesses next to 
each other, the head of the AFL-CIO and the head of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, to show that liberals, conservatives, labor, and industry all 
feel this should be at least the second highest priority in America.
  When I heard the President's budget yesterday and I looked at it, I 
shook my head in disbelief: $8.7 trillion in new spending, $1.6 
trillion in new taxes--all these things. I remembered back when I was 
complaining in 1996 at this very podium during the Clinton 
administration. That was his budget. It was $1.5 trillion. Do my 
colleagues know that the deficit in this President's budget is greater 
than the entire budget of 1996--to run this whole thing called America. 
It was a shocker to me. It reminded me about how people talk about 
entitlements and how we are going to have to do something with that.
  Something we can do right now is something I tried to do last year 
and the House Members are trying to do right now. When the President 
gave his message, he talked about how he was going to freeze nondefense 
discretionary spending and everyone applauded, thinking that was a 
great austerity program. In reality, he is talking about after he has 
increased it from 2008 levels to 2010 levels and then freezing in those 
increases. That is what I find unreasonable.
  So I am reintroducing S. 360--I have a whole lot of cosponsors--to 
wind back the discretionary spending to 2008 levels and then freeze it 
at 2008 levels.
  I will just tell you, briefly, what the bill does. It reduces the 
nonsecurity spending to 2008 levels and will hold it there for 5 years 
through 2016. After that, spending will be allowed to increase with the 
CPI of inflation between 2017 and 2021. The amount of money saved by 
this in that period of time would be over $1 trillion.
  If I can put up the chart. This chart shows what is going to happen 
if we don't do that. The red is what is projected in the President's 
budget; the blue is what is projected if we are successful in doing 
this. I am very proud the House of Representatives Republicans in their 
budget have included my bill I introduced last year and that I am 
reintroducing today as S. 360 as part of their budget. I think it is 
responsible. We will be looking forward to getting cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. Collins:
  S. 361. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans are resilient. Throughout our 
Nation's history, we have stood up to every challenge and we have stood 
together. At this moment in history, we face the challenge of 
recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great 
Depression. Through no fault of their own, too many Americans have lost 
their jobs and continue to struggle to find work in this tough economy. 
Putting Americans back to work is the key to economic recovery and must 
be the No. 1 goal for this Congress.
  Today, I offer my own seven-point plan to help us reach that goal. 
This jobs plan recognizes that small businesses are America's job 
creators and, thus, our efforts must be targeted toward helping small 
businesses start up, grow, and prosper.
  In Maine alone, we have 141,000 small businesses. During the past 
decade, America's small firms have created about 70 percent of all new 
jobs. But far too often Congress directs Federal policies and attention 
toward those businesses deemed too big to fail. Instead, we must 
redirect our efforts toward those small businesses that are too 
entrepreneurial to ignore.
  The plan I am introducing today is based on extensive conversations I 
have had with small business owners and workers throughout the State of 
Maine. It also represents a great deal of hard work by my staff.
  While each State has its own particular opportunities and challenges, 
the fundamentals of a jobs-oriented economic recovery are similar 
everywhere. As I illustrate my seven-point plan with examples from my 
home State of Maine, I believe the Presiding Officer and my colleagues 
will recognize similarities in their own home States.
  First, my plan to build a 21st century economy begins with building a 
21st century workforce. America's greatest asset is its people. 
Ensuring that American workers get the education and job training they 
need to compete in an increasingly global economy must be a top 
priority.
  My plan amends the Workforce Investment Act to place special emphasis 
on job training programs that assist our manufacturing industry. I am 
tired of seeing so many manufacturing jobs leave my State and our 
Nation to go overseas. It is important we have a strategy to work with 
manufacturers, to work with local community colleges and universities 
to develop the manufacturing base curriculum, job training programs, 
and research opportunities to ensure this generation and the next have 
the education and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Some of 
those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. But others are coming 
online, and America must lead and Congress must support targeted 
funding to help provide the resources for this education and training.
  In addition, we must provide workforce development assistance to 
those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the closure or 
realignment of military installations.
  For example, the State of Maine is expected to lose more than 6,500 
military and civilian jobs following the decisions made by the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005. We are losing the Brunswick 
Naval Air Station in our State. There are many other States, including 
Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey that are facing similar losses. In 
Virginia, nearly 40,000 jobs will be lost. In such cases where 
decisions made at the Federal level directly affect local employment, 
we have a special obligation to make sure displaced workers have the 
training and education they need to find new employment in their 
communities. After all, these communities have structured their 
economies to support military operations for decades, in many cases. 
Now that that lynchpin of the local economy is being pulled out, surely 
we have an obligation to help with the adjustment. My plan would 
redirect Economic Development Administration funds--EDA resources--to 
those communities most harmed by these decisions.
  Targeted Federal funds can also be a catalyst for new economic 
opportunities. For example, I worked to secure one-time funding for a 
radiologic technician training program at a Maine community college. 
This program had broad support from local hospitals and from the 
college, but they simply couldn't afford the expensive equipment to get 
the program under way. With that one-time Federal investment, the 
program is now completely self-sustaining, and it produces between 18 
and 20 graduates a year. Job

[[Page 2068]]

placement has been 100 percent, with graduates earning starting 
salaries of about $40,000 a year. I am sure similar targeted job 
training success stories can be found in every State, and we ought to 
build on them.
  We must also fix what has not worked as well as it should. Government 
agencies must provide more efficient and productive services to the 
American people. The Department of Labor, for example, should reduce 
paperwork and redtape associated with Federal job training programs. 
The Department should identify ways it could cut costs by working more 
closely with other government entities, such as the Department of 
Education, and with the private sector. The best programs I have seen 
at community colleges, for example, combine some job training funds 
with commitments from private employers to hire the graduates and to 
help shape those job training programs so we are training people for 
the jobs that exist or that are going to exist.
  The second part of my plan would encourage innovation in Maine's 
natural resource-based economy. Nowhere is there greater potential than 
in energy. I want the United States to lead the world in developing 
renewable energy technologies, and that is going to require significant 
private and public investments to develop this technology and to make 
its deployment affordable. For example, deepwater offshore wind has 
enormous potential to help us meet our Nation's electricity needs, and 
it presents an exciting opportunity to create thousands of much needed, 
good-paying, and sustainable green jobs. Estimates show that the 
development of just 5 gigawatts of offshore wind off the coast of 
Maine--and that is just a fraction of the overall potential--could 
power more than 1 million homes, attract $20 billion of investment, and 
create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 
30 years.
  Deepwater offshore wind is the key transformative technology that 
America needs in order to compete globally. Europe, China, Japan--our 
technology competitors--continue to make far larger investments in 
offshore wind R&D than we do. I am proud of the work of the University 
of Maine and the DeepCwind Consortium private sector investment to 
deploy loading wind turbines, which would be the first of its kind in 
the world, placing the United States in a position to lead in deepwater 
offshore wind technology.
  Federal investments in programs to spur the advancement of deepwater 
offshore wind is an investment in America's future. Federal and State 
seed funding is expected to yield up to $4 billion in private sector 
investment over the next 10 years in Maine alone. With these 
investments, Maine is well positioned to be a global leader in this 
promising source of alternative energy. We must not lose these jobs to 
China, as has increasingly occurred with solar technology. Let's not 
let it happen with deepwater offshore wind technology.
  We must also do more to promote agricultural exports. I know this is 
an issue of great interest to the Presiding Officer. In Maine, 
blueberries, potatoes, and lobster help create and sustain jobs in our 
State. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 12,000 jobs. 
Therefore, increasing exports of our agricultural products could play 
an important role in reviving our economy. Boosting support for the 
Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Services will help 
promote our homegrown natural products abroad. This effort to increase 
agricultural exports could be paid for by strengthening our effort to 
curtail wasteful agricultural subsidies, such as payments to very 
wealthy corporate farmers who, frankly, do not need Federal assistance.
  The corn-based ethanol tax break is another example of an 
extraordinarily expensive subsidy, costing taxpayers some $6 billion 
annually, and which has produced a host of problems from higher grain 
prices to impaired engine performance. We must reevaluate all programs 
that have not performed as promised and then reallocate their funding 
to job-creation initiatives and to deficit reduction.
  Third, we simply must do more to encourage job creation and 
investment by small business. My plan includes a series of tax reform 
proposals targeted at these engines of job growth. The tax package 
agreed to by Congress and the President in December included a 2-
percent cut in the employee portion of the payroll tax, but no cut was 
provided for the employer portion of the payroll tax.
  With unemployment stuck above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months, we 
must do more to encourage businesses to hire. When I talk to small 
businesses, they tell me this is something we can do that would 
directly reduce the cost of hiring and encourage them to bring on more 
workers. My proposal includes a 2-percent reduction of the employer 
portion of the payroll tax on the first $50,000 of payroll for 1 year. 
This reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax is estimated 
to lead to the creation of 1.4 million jobs. This will work.
  As with the employee-side payroll tax relief we passed in December, 
my proposal would require the Treasury to reimburse the Social Security 
trust fund using general revenues. Again, the cost of this payroll tax 
relief can be offset by eliminating the ethanol and other wasteful 
subsidies and by implementing budget cuts for discretionary spending.
  There are other provisions in my bill that are targeted toward small 
businesses. For example, section 179 is a provision of the Tax Code 
that small businesses have found to be very helpful. It allows them to 
immediately expense equipment purchases rather than depreciate those 
purchases over many years.
  I also propose making permanent the tax provision allowing 
restaurants to depreciate equipment over 15 years rather than 39\1/2\ 
years. Think about it. If a restaurant is only renovating once every 40 
years, that is not going to be very feasible or attractive to its 
patrons.
  The plan would also reduce the depreciation periods on commercial and 
residential buildings to 15 years to encourage investment and jump-
start the economy. We did that back in 1981, and it worked.
  My fourth point is one that some small business owners, I know, would 
put at the very top of the list of what we should do; that is, we need 
to reduce the redtape that ties them in knots. Let me provide an 
illustration.
  We need to make sure Federal regulations do not impose an unnecessary 
burden on job creation. The EPA has proposed a new regulation known as 
the boiler MACT. This rule, as originally proposed, could cost Maine 
businesses $640 million to comply with, despite the fact there are less 
costly approaches to deal with boiler emissions. It also has Federal 
agencies working at cross-purposes. Here we have the Department of 
Energy trying to encourage the conversion to biomass boilers at the 
same time the EPA is putting burdensome new regulations on them.
  The result in Maine was the Department of Energy awarded one Maine 
high school a $300,000 grant to help buy a new wood pellet boiler to 
reduce the school's use of fossil fuels. But because EPA's proposed 
regulations would have greatly increased the cost of that boiler, the 
school board ended up turning down the grant. This is an example of 
where the right hand did not know what the left was doing.
  My point is that Federal agencies should take into account the impact 
on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules. Thus, my 
plan contains several provisions to help reduce onerous regulations and 
cut redtape.
  First, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of 
regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, 
and consumer prices.
  Second, it obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice 
and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these 
requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.''
  Third, it creates a mechanism to protect small businesses from 
onerous penalties the very first time they fail to comply with a 
paperwork requirement as long as no harm comes from that failure. If it 
is an honest, first-

[[Page 2069]]

time mistake that causes no harm, why do we want to slap that small 
business with a heavy fine? That does not make sense.
  The fifth point in my plan is aimed at our transportation policies. 
Getting raw materials to the factory or farm and finished products to 
market quickly, efficiently, and safely must be a priority. But the 
inconsistent and inequitable Federal policy on truck weight limits on 
interstate highways provides a telling example of where we are doing 
the opposite. The consequences are particularly acute in Maine.
  I have spoken on this issue many times, so I am going to briefly 
describe it. Maine's businesses and trucking firms are currently at a 
competitive disadvantage because Federal law prohibits the heaviest 
trucks from using Federal interstates and instead diverts them to 
downtown streets and secondary roads. This means, for example, that 
nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic 
corridors in my State are off-limits. Yet these same trucks are 
permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
parts of New York State, and neighboring provinces in Canada. That 
makes Maine and Vermont an island of noncompetitiveness. It just does 
not make sense. The heaviest trucks belong on the roads built for them.
  In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project to 
allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal 
interstates. This project was an enormous success. It helped to 
preserve and create jobs because it allowed our businesses to be more 
efficient. It lowered fuel costs. It resulted in fewer carbon 
emissions, and it made our roads safer. Working with Senator Leahy, I 
am trying to make this permanent.
  Point No. 6: We must invest in America's future. Research and 
development investment is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep 
our economy competitive and to create good-paying jobs. The R&D tax 
credit provides an important incentive, but it needs to be updated so 
more companies can benefit from it. And there needs to be more 
certainty. Just having that tax credit from year to year discourages 
the kind of long-range planning and investment companies need. My plan 
includes a 5-year extension of the R&D tax credit. That is likely to 
happen, but by doing it year by year we create all these disincentives 
for investment.
  Finally, the seventh point in my plan would help expand opportunities 
for small businesses and farmers to do business with the Federal 
Government. We need to help our small businesses, our farmers tap into 
markets they have not previously explored. As the former head of the 
New England Small Business Administration, I know how essential this 
drive for new markets is for job creation and for our economy.
  One approach we are going to take is my Washington and State offices 
are going to redouble their efforts to help small businesses reach the 
Federal Government because the Federal Government is the largest 
consumer of goods and services in our country. I know that disturbs a 
lot of Americans right now, and it shows the size of the Federal 
Government. The fact is, the Federal Government purchased more than 
$535 billion worth of goods and services in this past fiscal year. Some 
23 percent of that spending is directed to small businesses, and last 
year the value of Federal contracts to small businesses in my State 
alone was more than $250 million. If we can expand the opportunity for 
small businesses to do business with the Federal Government, that is a 
brandnew market for their products and services.
  Last year, along with my colleague, Senator Snowe, and in conjunction 
with the Department of Defense Northeast Regional Council and the Maine 
Procurement Technical Assistance Center, I sponsored a small business 
matchmaker conference that brought together government agencies and 
prime contractors with our small business community to match up the 
purchasing needs with goods and services. It was a 3-day conference in 
south Portland. It was a tremendous success. We had about 385 small 
business owners and representatives from 135 government agencies and 
prime contractors looking to subcontract work meet face to face, sit 
down, exchange ideas.
  Let me give an example of a successful connection that was made. A 
representative of a $2 billion aerospace company sat across the table 
from the owner of a 40-employee Maine machine shop with experience in 
very high quality, high-end custom work. That first meeting led to a 
significant business relationship that continues to grow.
  I note that at our conference in south Portland, our total number of 
registrants was 597 people, and that just shows how eager our small 
businesses are to expand their customer base.
  One great benefit of the matchmaker approach is instead of a small 
business working for weeks or even months to try to find the right 
person in the vast government bureaucracy or the right prime 
contractor, our entrepreneurs merely need to sit down across the table 
with them. It is direct, effective, and efficient.
  But, obviously, it is not easy to do business with Uncle Sam. The 
rules and regulations are often strict, cumbersome, and unfamiliar. 
That is where our offices can help.
  My plan also calls for Congress to work harder to open the Federal 
marketplace beyond the Washington beltway to entrepreneurs in every 
State. That will benefit our job creators and the American taxpayer 
because there will be more competition.
  The struggling economy has challenged our Nation's entrepreneurial 
spirit, but that spirit remains strong in Maine, in your State of New 
York, Madam President, and across the Nation. We will recover from this 
deep recession, but the recovery depends on the right policies in 
Washington to encourage the innovative and bold job creators of 
America. That means helping our small businesses start up, grow, 
prosper, sustain, and create good jobs.
  My seven-point jobs plan offers a straightforward path forward for 
Congress to lead rather than impede job creation at this critical 
juncture in our history and in our recovery.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Small Business &


                                     Entrepreneurship Council,

                                    Oakton, VA, February 16, 2011.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The Small Business & Entrepreneurship 
     Council (SBE Council) and its members across the nation 
     appreciate and support your proposed ``Seven Point Plan for 
     Growing Jobs Act.''
       As you are aware, entrepreneurs, small businesses and the 
     overall economy have been suffering due to uncertainty and 
     rising costs when it comes to federal tax and regulatory 
     measures. Your legislation's sections on small business tax 
     relief and regulatory reform thankfully would provide some 
     relief and clarity.
       For example, making permanent the expanded expensing levels 
     for capital expenditures made by small businesses would be a 
     plus for investment, creating jobs, and boosting incomes.
       In addition, the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirements 
     included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
     i.e., that businesses must issue 1099 forms to all vendors 
     for goods purchased exceeding $600--would remove a big, 
     looming paperwork burden for the small business community.
       In addition, the measures to improve upon the federal 
     government's regulatory process are most welcome, including 
     the requirement that agencies submit a cost-benefit analysis 
     for each significant regulation, that this process be open 
     and more transparent to the public, and that small businesses 
     be given opportunities to seek waivers of penalties for 
     first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations.
       These are positive tax and regulatory reforms that will 
     help small businesses in their ongoing struggles to deal with 
     the otherwise mounting burdens from government.
       Thank you for your leadership Senator Collins. SBE Council 
     looks forward to working with you to ensure this important 
     legislation is advanced into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
                                                  President & CEO.

[[Page 2070]]

     
                                  ____
                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2011.
     Senator Susan Collins,
      Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business organization, I am writing in support of the Seven 
     Point Plan for Growing Jobs Act. Your bill would help to 
     support a small business recovery by addressing two of their 
     most important problems--taxes and regulations.
       Small businesses account for about two-thirds of the net 
     new jobs created, but they continue to struggle. The most 
     recent monthly NFIB Small Business Economic Trends (SBET) 
     Survey, found that small business confidence was up slightly, 
     but still below prerecession levels and not improving fast 
     enough to support meaningful job creation. While sales 
     continues to be the number one problem facing small business, 
     second and third in the survey are taxes and regulations.
       The Seven Point Plan for Growing Jobs Act provides both 
     short-term and long-term tax relief for small business. 
     First, the bill would build on last year's payroll tax cut 
     for employees by providing an equal reduction in the portion 
     of the payroll tax paid by employers. Payroll tax relief will 
     help to reduce the cost of hiring, making it less expensive 
     for small businesses to retain and add new workers.
       Over the last few years, capital expenditures have been at 
     or near an all-time low in the SBET survey. To address this, 
     the bill includes permanent investment incentives that will 
     help small businesses cover the cost of new investments as 
     they recover from the recession. Specifically, the bill would 
     make permanent the increased and expanded section 179 
     expensing provision and shorter depreciation periods for 
     business properties such as restaurants and retail spaces, as 
     well as commercial buildings.
       The proposal would also repeal the expanded 1099 reporting 
     requirements included in the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (PPACA), reducing the tax-filing burden 
     on small businesses. Based on an NFIB Small Business Survey, 
     tax paperwork is already the most expensive paperwork burden 
     placed on small business by the federal government and the 
     new 1099 requirements would increase this cost dramatically.
       The Seven Point Plan for Jobs Act also provides important 
     regulatory reforms for small businesses. It allows for a 
     reduction or waiver of penalties on small businesses the 
     first time the business makes a non-harmful mistake on 
     paperwork. Because the paperwork burden often falls on the 
     small business owner--and because small businesses do not 
     have dedicated compliance staff--this relief for innocent 
     mistakes is most welcome.
       The bill also provides agencies the ability to better 
     analyze both direct and indirect costs and benefits, which 
     will give the public more accurate information on the 
     economic impact of proposed rulemakings. In addition, the 
     bill requires agencies to treat guidance documents for 
     significant rules as the enforceable standards they are. With 
     this measure, small businesses and the public will have a 
     greater input on these important documents.
       Again, thank you for introducing this important 
     legislation, which will help small business and support a 
     meaningful economic recovery and job creation. We look 
     forward to working with you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
                             Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 372. A bill the ability of terrorists, spies, criminals, and other 
malicious actors to compromise, disrupt, damage, and destroy computer 
networks, critical infrastructure, and key resources, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the Internet has had a profound impact on 
the daily lives of millions of Americans by enhancing communications, 
commerce, education and socialization between and among persons 
regardless of their location. Internationally, we have seen the 
transformative power of the Internet in places like Egypt. A free and 
open Internet gives strength and a voice to people worldwide and should 
be protected from censorship and other forms of suppression. But the 
Internet and those who engage in communications and commerce across 
cyberspace must be safe--protected from predators like criminals, 
terrorists and spies who wish to exploit or compromise information and 
systems connected to the Internet. Our Nation is vulnerable to such 
attacks, but working together, in partnership with the private sector, 
we can find a balance that keeps information flowing freely while 
keeping us all safe from harm.
  I have been focusing on cybersecurity issues for quite some time. 
More than a year ago, as the former chairman of the Terrorism and 
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I chaired a 
Subcommittee hearing titled ``Cybersecurity: Preventing Terrorist 
Attacks and Protecting Privacy in Cyberspace.'' The hearing included 
witnesses from key federal agencies responsible for cybersecurity, as 
well as representatives of the private sector. We reviewed governmental 
and private sector efforts to prevent a terrorist cyber attack that 
could cripple large sectors of our government, economy, and essential 
services.
  The cybersecurity expertise that I have developed has convinced me 
that the Government and the private sector can and should work together 
to protect the American people in cyberspace. As a result, I am 
reintroducing the Cybersecurity and Internet Safety Standards Act, 
CISSA. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Whitehouse, will 
require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of 
National Intelligence, to conduct an analysis to determine the costs 
and benefits of requiring internet service providers and others to 
develop and enforce minimum voluntary or mandatory cybersecurity and 
Internet safety standards. Under this bill, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security will be required to report to Congress within one year with 
specific recommendations. Cybersecurity must be a top priority. This 
bill will help secure our nation's digital future by keeping the 
American people and our cyber infrastructure safe without hampering the 
freedoms inherently found in an open and accessible Internet.
  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. 372

       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 ``Cybersecurity and Internet 
     Safety Standards Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Computers.--Except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     the term ``computers'' means computers and other devices that 
     connect to the Internet.
       (2) Providers.--The term ``providers'' means Internet 
     service providers, communications service providers, 
     electronic messaging providers, electronic mail providers, 
     and other persons who provide a service or capability to 
     enable computers to connect to the Internet.
       (3) Secretary.--Except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) While the Internet has had a profound impact on the 
     daily lives of the people of the United States by enhancing 
     communications, commerce, education, and socialization 
     between and among persons regardless of their location, 
     computers may be used, exploited, and compromised by 
     terrorists, criminals, spies, and other malicious actors, 
     and, therefore, computers pose a risk to computer networks, 
     critical infrastructure, and key resources in the United 
     States. Indeed, users of computers are generally unaware that 
     their computers may be used, exploited, and compromised by 
     others with spam, viruses, and other malicious software and 
     agents.
       (2) Since computer networks, critical infrastructure, and 
     key resources of the United States are at risk of being 
     compromised, disrupted, damaged, or destroyed by terrorists, 
     criminals, spies, and other malicious actors who use 
     computers, cybersecurity and Internet safety is an urgent 
     homeland security issue that needs to be addressed by 
     providers, technology companies, and persons who use 
     computers.
       (3) The Government and the private sector need to work 
     together to develop and enforce minimum voluntary or 
     mandatory cybersecurity and Internet safety standards for 
     users of computers to prevent terrorists, criminals, spies, 
     and other malicious actors from compromising, disrupting, 
     damaging, or destroying the computer networks, critical 
     infrastructure, and key resources of the United States.

[[Page 2071]]



     SEC. 4. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

       (a) Requirement for Analysis.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall 
     conduct an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of 
     requiring providers to develop and enforce voluntary or 
     mandatory minimum cybersecurity and Internet safety standards 
     for users of computers to prevent terrorists, criminals, 
     spies, and other malicious actors from compromising, 
     disrupting, damaging, or destroying computer networks, 
     critical infrastructure, and key resources.
       (b) Factors.--In conducting the analysis required by 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider--
       (1) all relevant factors, including the effect that the 
     development and enforcement of minimum voluntary or mandatory 
     cybersecurity and Internet safety standards may have on 
     homeland security, the global economy, innovation, individual 
     liberty, and privacy; and
       (2) any legal impediments that may exist to the 
     implementation of such standards.

     SEC. 5. CONSULTATION.

       In conducting the analysis required by section 4, the 
     Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Director of National Intelligence, 
     the Federal Communications Commission, and relevant 
     stakeholders in the Government and the private sector, 
     including the academic community, groups, or other 
     institutions, that have scientific and technical expertise 
     related to standards for computer networks, critical 
     infrastructure, or key resources.

     SEC. 6. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a final report on the 
     results of the analysis required by section 4. Such report 
     shall include the consensus recommendations, if any, for 
     minimum voluntary or mandatory cybersecurity and Internet 
     safety standards that should be developed and enforced for 
     users of computers to prevent terrorists, criminals, spies, 
     and other malicious actors from compromising, disrupting, 
     damaging, or destroying computer networks, critical 
     infrastructure, and key resources.
       (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress.--In this section, 
     the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Inouye, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 373. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 
Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Inouye, Stabenow, and Schumer, to reintroduce 
an important piece of legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug 
Competition Act. Our legislation eliminates one of the most prominent 
loopholes that brand name drug companies use to limit consumer access 
to lower-cost generic drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called 
``authorized generic'' drugs during the 180-day exclusivity period that 
Congress designed to provide specific incentives to true generics to 
enter the market.
  An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced 
by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet 
repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are 
cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. 
However, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, 
extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for 
consumers over the long-term.
  After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug--the 
brand-name manufacturer--which has already been handsomely rewarded for 
its investment--doesn't want to let go of its profits. So, it 
repackages the drug and refers to it as a generic in order to extend 
its market share, while cutting in half the financial incentive for an 
independent generic to enter the marketplace. This is a huge problem 
and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the 
best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals expire.
  In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term 
Restoration Act, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to provide consumers 
greater access to lower-cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was 
to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand 
name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. 
Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for a 180-day marketing 
exclusivity period for the first generic firm that successfully 
challenges a brand-name patent under the Abbreviated New Drug 
Application, ANDA, process--thereby providing a crucial incentive for 
generic drug companies to enter the market and make prescription drugs 
more affordable for consumers.
  Filing a patent challenge is expensive and requires enormous up-front 
costs for the generic company. Yet, the 180-day exclusivity incentive 
to launch a patent challenge is being widely undermined by authorized 
generics. According to one account, since 2004, ``authorized generic 
versions have appeared for nearly all drugs with expiring U.S. 
patents.'' And, because authorized generics are still allowed, an 
independent generic can get all the way to the end of a patent 
challenge--even winning in court--but still lose the anticipated reward 
of 180-day market exclusivity because the brand-name company can, and 
does, launch an authorized generic. The fact that the brand-name 
company can launch an authorized generic even if it loses a patent 
challenge to a generic company gives it an incentive to pursue multiple 
additional patents on dubious grounds, just for the sake of extending 
its market share. The fact remains that brand-name firms regularly 
introduce authorized generics on the eve of generic competition, 
further extending their hold on the market and chilling competition 
from independent generic drugs.
  Every American agrees on the need to reduce health care costs. Today, 
generic medications comprise 69 percent of all prescriptions in this 
country, yet only 16 percent of all dollars spent on prescriptions. 
Furthermore, in 2007, the average retail price of a generic 
prescription drug was $34.34, compared to the $119.51 average retail 
price of a brand name prescription drug. In fact, generic drugs save 
consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail 
pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make a huge 
difference, particularly during difficult economic times.
  Passage of the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act would 
revitalize and protect the true intent of the 180-day marketing 
exclusivity period created in the Hatch-Waxman Act. This bill does just 
that by eliminating the authorized generics loophole, protecting the 
integrity of the 180-day exclusivity period, and improving consumer 
access to lower-cost generic drugs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of 
legislation.

                          ____________________