[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2083-2101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 400. A bill to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 
to include the Corps of Engineers as a Federal land management agency, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, today Senator Merkley and I are 
introducing the Corps of Engineers Recreation Improvement Act. This 
legislation enables the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reinvest 
recreation fees to improve facilities where the funds are collected. 
Our bill creates an incentive for the Corps to maintain good facilities 
and provide quality recreational opportunities on our public lands. The 
Corps currently collects recreation fees at many sites. This 
legislation would not change the way the Corps determines use fee 
rates. Existing law provides that users of specialized sites, 
facilities, equipment, or services provided by Federal expense shall be 
assessed fair and equitable fees. Section 210 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1968 also provides that no entrance fees shall be charged by the 
Corps. Our bill is not intended to and does not make any changes in 
that regard.
  In Arkansas, recreation on our public Corps-operated lands is an 
important driver of economic activity, job opportunities, and tourism. 
In fiscal year 2012, over $4.2 million in revenue was collected at 
Corps recreation sites in Arkansas. When citizens spend money at Corps 
recreation sites in Arkansas, Oregon, or other States, many of them 
expect that their money will be invested on-site to improve facilities 
and create recreation opportunities. Our bill would ensure those 
expectations are met.
  The Corps of Engineers Recreation Improvement Act would also enable 
the Corps to participate in the interagency America the Beautiful Pass 
program to allow customers an alternative payment option at sites where 
entrance or amenity fees are charged. This includes the distribution 
and sale of the passes and the retention of a portion of the revenue 
for the sales of those passes. It would also allow the Corps to 
distribute Military Passes. This will make it easier for our men and 
women in uniform and their families to acquire passes. The Corps 
currently honors these passes but the Corps is not allowed to 
distribute the passes. Providing the ability for the Corps to offer 
passes to customers is a commonsense solution that will encourage 
continued use of Federal recreation sites.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 402. A bill to provide for the addition of certain real property 
to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will 
address a cumbersome and time consuming process in place under existing 
law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will 
streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribes of 
Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is 
simply not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be 
made in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Merkley in this effort. I want to note that I introduced similar 
legislation last Congress that was stalled at the Committee level due 
to certain language in that bill--language that, at the time, we 
thought was needed but found later was unnecessary and was preventing 
the bill from moving forward. In the bill I am introducing today, I 
took that language out to resolve the needs of the various stakeholders 
and to ensure the bill has a chance to pass the Committee and be signed 
into law.
  The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the 
Executive Order on November 9, 1855, was diminished and then eliminated 
by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal 
members and the tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz 
community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 
stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition. Since then 
the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This 
legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust 
process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome 
chronic agency delays in processing applications. Instead of having two 
cumbersome processes to bring each piece of former reservation land 
back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into 
trust and another to make it reservation land, my legislation would 
allow the tribe to combine the process.
  In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, and 
the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon 
restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place 
into trust today is considered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, 
pursuant to off-reservation fee-to-trust procedures. Off-reservation 
requests would mean that, according the regulations, the ``. . . 
secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of 
anticipated benefits. . .''
  By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within 
the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this

[[Page 2084]]

legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will 
ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, 
government administration, and jobs--for both tribal and county 
residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the 
intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the 
Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into 
trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. 
Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of 
the tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into 
trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their 
reservations.
  This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self-
determination for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and its 
members. Due to failed Termination Era policies, Oregon Tribal 
communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health 
care, education, or crime on reservations. This bill would alleviate 
much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the 
bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which 
mean a significant savings of time and resources.
  The Siletz Tribe has approached all the involved counties and has 
developed great communication and working relationships with them. This 
legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial 
partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local 
counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation. The process remains 
cumbersome and costly and I recognize the need for more action. It is 
always great to see tribes and local counties work together to come up 
with proactive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging 
economic conditions.
  I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and 
tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They 
represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.
  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. 402

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE SILETZ TRIBE 
                   OF THE STATE OF OREGON.

       Section 7 of the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act (25 
     U.S.C. 711e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Treatment of Certain Property.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Title.--The Secretary may accept title to any 
     additional number of acres of real property located within 
     the boundaries of the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation 
     established by Executive Order dated November 9, 1855, 
     comprised of land within the political boundaries of Benton, 
     Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill Counties in 
     the State of Oregon, if that real property is conveyed or 
     otherwise transferred to the United States by or on behalf of 
     the tribe.
       ``(B) Trust.--Land to which title is accepted by the 
     Secretary under this paragraph shall be held in trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the tribe.
       ``(2) Treatment as part of reservation.--All real property 
     that is taken into trust under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) be considered and evaluated as an on-reservation 
     acquisition under part 151.10 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations); and
       ``(B) become part of the reservation of the tribe.
       ``(3) Prohibition on gaming.--Any real property taken into 
     trust under paragraph (1) shall not be eligible, or used, for 
     any gaming activity carried out under the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, 
        Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Blumenthal):
  S. 405. A bill to provide for media coverage of Federal court 
proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in 
the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all 
federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and 
radio broadcasts.
  Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what 
happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too 
many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting 
the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an 
opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the 
bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the 
public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire 
greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and 
impartial justice for all.
  For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed 
cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, 
only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court 
coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts; 
sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining 
fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules.
  The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five 
other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary 
Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by 
letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and 
other forms of electronic media.
  The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure 
that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into 
courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the 
presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the 
sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also 
provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this 
legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent 
through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy 
and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have 
their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of 
jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process 
rights of each party.
  We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal 
Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore 
understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure 
that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the 
safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have 
allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we 
join them.
  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. 405

       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 ``Sunshine in the Courtroom 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL APPELLATE AND DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means 
     the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In 
     proceedings in which more than 1 judge participates, the 
     presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so 
     participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals, 
     the senior active circuit judge so participating, except 
     that--
       (A) in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court 
     of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of 
     the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and
       (B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice 
     whenever the Chief Justice participates.
       (2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term 
     ``appellate court of the United States'' means any United 
     States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.
       (b) Authority of Presiding Judge To Allow Media Coverage of 
     Court Proceedings.--
       (1) Authority of appellate courts.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B), 
     the presiding judge of an appellate court of the United 
     States may, at the discretion of that judge, permit the

[[Page 2085]]

     photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising to the public of any court proceeding over which 
     that judge presides.
       (B) Exception.--The presiding judge shall not permit any 
     action under subparagraph (A), if--
       (i) in the case of a proceeding involving only the 
     presiding judge, that judge determines the action would 
     constitute a violation of the due process rights of any 
     party; or
       (ii) in the case of a proceeding involving the 
     participation of more than 1 judge, a majority of the judges 
     participating determine that the action would constitute a 
     violation of the due process rights of any party.
       (2) Authority of district courts.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     except as provided under clause (iii), the presiding judge of 
     a district court of the United States may, at the discretion 
     of that judge, permit the photographing, electronic 
     recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any 
     court proceeding over which that judge presides.
       (ii) Obscuring of witnesses.--Except as provided under 
     clause (iii)--

       (I) upon the request of any witness (other than a party) in 
     a trial proceeding, the court shall order the face and voice 
     of the witness to be disguised or otherwise obscured in such 
     manner as to render the witness unrecognizable to the 
     broadcast audience of the trial proceeding; and
       (II) the presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall inform 
     each witness who is not a party that the witness has the 
     right to request the image and voice of that witness to be 
     obscured during the witness' testimony.

       (iii) Exception.--The presiding judge shall not permit any 
     action under this subparagraph--

       (I) if that judge determines the action would constitute a 
     violation of the due process rights of any party; and
       (II) until the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     promulgates mandatory guidelines under paragraph (5).

       (B) No media coverage of jurors.--The presiding judge shall 
     not permit the photographing, electronic recording, 
     broadcasting, or televising of any juror in a trial 
     proceeding, or of the jury selection process.
       (C) Discretion of the judge.--The presiding judge shall 
     have the discretion to obscure the face and voice of an 
     individual, if good cause is shown that the photographing, 
     electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of the 
     individual would threaten--
       (i) the safety of the individual;
       (ii) the security of the court;
       (iii) the integrity of future or ongoing law enforcement 
     operations; or
       (iv) the interest of justice.
       (D) Sunset of district court authority.--The authority 
     under this paragraph shall terminate 3 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Interlocutory appeals barred.--The decision of the 
     presiding judge under this subsection of whether or not to 
     permit, deny, or terminate the photographing, electronic 
     recording, broadcasting, or televising of a court proceeding 
     may not be challenged through an interlocutory appeal.
       (4) Advisory guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States may promulgate advisory guidelines to which a 
     presiding judge, at the discretion of that judge, may refer 
     in making decisions with respect to the management and 
     administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising described under paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (5) Mandatory guidelines.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of 
     the United States shall promulgate mandatory guidelines which 
     a presiding judge is required to follow for obscuring of 
     certain vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims, minor 
     victims, families of victims, cooperating witnesses, 
     undercover law enforcement officers or agents, witnesses 
     subject to section 3521 of title 18, United States Code, 
     relating to witness relocation and protection, or minors 
     under the age of 18 years. The guidelines shall include 
     procedures for determining, at the earliest practicable time 
     in any investigation or case, which witnesses should be 
     considered vulnerable under this section.
       (6) Procedures.--In the interests of justice and fairness, 
     the presiding judge of the court in which media use is 
     desired has discretion to promulgate rules and disciplinary 
     measures for the courtroom use of any form of media or media 
     equipment and the acquisition or distribution of any of the 
     images or sounds obtained in the courtroom. The presiding 
     judge shall also have discretion to require written 
     acknowledgment of the rules by anyone individually or on 
     behalf of any entity before being allowed to acquire any 
     images or sounds from the courtroom.
       (7) No broadcast of conferences between attorneys and 
     clients.--There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of 
     conferences which occur in a court proceeding between 
     attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel of a client, 
     between adverse counsel, or between counsel and the presiding 
     judge, if the conferences are not part of the official record 
     of the proceedings.
       (8) Expenses.--A court may require that any accommodations 
     to effectuate this Act be made without public expense.
       (9) Inherent authority.--Nothing in this Act shall limit 
     the inherent authority of a court to protect witnesses or 
     clear the courtroom to preserve the decorum and integrity of 
     the legal process or protect the safety of an individual.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 408. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under 
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week TIME Magazine published an 
extensive piece that took a close look at the hidden costs within our 
health care system and how the Medicare program, which is widely 
disparaged these days, is effective in controlling costs.
  We as a nation will spend $2.8 trillion this year on health care. 
That is on average 27 percent more than what is spent per capita in 
other developed countries.
  According to the TIME article, many hospitals routinely overcharge 
patients and reap profits at the expense of American families. As one 
former hospital billing officer put it, ``hospitals all know the bills 
are fiction.''
  Too many families are put on the path to financial ruin because of 
hospital bills.
  Another thing the TIME piece highlighted was that Medicare is much 
more effective at controlling costs than private sector providers, 
whether non-profit or for-profit.
  Because Medicare sets the prices it is willing to pay providers in 
advance, patients with Medicare coverage are charged substantially less 
than patients with private health insurance who have received the same 
services.
  In fact, projected Medicare spending over the 2011-2020 period is 
more than $500 billion lower since late 2010 than CBO projected.
  But we can do more. Every day, 10,000 Americans turn 65 and become 
eligible for Medicare. In 11 years, Medicare's hospital insurance fund 
will start paying out more in benefits than it takes in.
  Meaningful reforms that lead to better health care at lower costs are 
good for America's seniors--and for our entire health care system. And 
that should start with changes to Part D.
  Today, I am introducing with Senators Whitehouse and Jack Reed the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act.
  Our bill would save taxpayer dollars by giving Medicare beneficiaries 
the choice to participate in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan 
run by Medicare, not private insurance companies.
  Seniors want the ability to choose a Medicare-administered drug plan, 
so let's give them this option.
  In 2010, Americans spent approximately $260 billion on prescription 
drugs. That figure is projected to double over the next decade. 
However, patients in the United States spend 50 percent more than other 
developed countries for the same drugs.
  The average monthly price of cancer drugs has doubled over the past 
10 years, from about $5,000 to more than $10,000.
  Of the 12 new cancer drugs approved by the FDA last year, 11 were 
priced above $100,000 a year.
  About 77 percent of all cancers are diagnosed in persons 55 years of 
age and older.
  As these people enter the program, Medicare should be allowed to 
control how much it pays for these prescription drugs.
  While the Affordable Care Act does a lot to control costs in the 
private insurance market, current law handcuffs Medicare beneficiaries 
from obtaining competitive prices for their prescription drugs.
  For all other Medicare programs, beneficiaries can choose whether to 
receive benefits directly through Medicare or through a private 
insurance plan.
  The overwhelming majority of seniors choose the Medicare-run option 
for their hospital and physician coverage.
  Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to develop at least one 
nationwide prescription drug plan.

[[Page 2086]]

  Why? Because we should take advantage of the Federal Government's 
purchasing power.
  The Veterans Administration uses this type of negotiating authority 
and has cut drug prices by as much as 50 percent for our Nation's 
veterans.
  Savings from negotiating on behalf of seniors in Medicare could be 
used to further reduce costs in the program and ensure the program is 
there for future generations.
  America's health care system is burdening families and hindering our 
ability to invest in the future.
  The Affordable Care Act takes important steps to begin bringing down 
costs in the private market and in Medicare, but there is more we can 
do. This proposal is a simple and common sense option that should be 
available for seniors.
  Allowing Medicare to manage a prescription drug plan and negotiate 
prices, taxpayers will save money and seniors will get high quality 
drug coverage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 408

       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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Savings and Choice Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG 
                   PLAN OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act is amended by inserting after section 
     1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) the following new section:


           ``medicare operated prescription drug plan option

       ``Sec. 1860D-11A.  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with 
     2014), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
     11, the Secretary shall offer one or more Medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a 
     service area that consists of the entire United States and 
     shall enter into negotiations in accordance with subsection 
     (b) with pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the purchase 
     cost of covered part D drugs for eligible part D individuals 
     who enroll in such a plan.
       ``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i), 
     for purposes of offering a Medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate 
     with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the 
     purchase price of covered part D drugs in a Medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan and shall encourage the use of more 
     affordable therapeutic equivalents to the extent such 
     practices do not override medical necessity as determined by 
     the prescribing physician. To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with the previous sentence, the Secretary shall 
     implement strategies similar to those used by other Federal 
     purchasers of prescription drugs, and other strategies, 
     including the use of a formulary and formulary incentives in 
     subsection (e), to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D 
     drugs.
       ``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
     For purposes of this part, the term `Medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that 
     offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to 
     negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such 
     a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in 
     the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage 
     offered by other prescription drug plans.
       ``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
       ``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly 
     beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage 
     and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
     2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a Medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such 
     premium for months in 2014 and each succeeding year shall be 
     based on the average monthly per capita actuarial cost of 
     offering the Medicare operated prescription drug plan for the 
     year involved, including administrative expenses.
       ``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as 
     a Medicare operated prescription drug plan offers 
     supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may 
     adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Use of a Formulary and Formulary Incentives.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to the operation of a 
     Medicare operated prescription drug plan, the Secretary shall 
     establish and apply a formulary (and may include formulary 
     incentives described in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)) in accordance 
     with this subsection in order to--
       ``(A) increase patient safety;
       ``(B) increase appropriate use and reduce inappropriate use 
     of drugs; and
       ``(C) reward value.
       ``(2) Development of initial formulary.--
       ``(A) In general.--In selecting covered part D drugs for 
     inclusion in a formulary, the Secretary shall consider 
     clinical benefit and price.
       ``(B) Role of ahrq.--The Director of the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality shall be responsible for 
     assessing the clinical benefit of covered part D drugs and 
     making recommendations to the Secretary regarding which drugs 
     should be included in the formulary. In conducting such 
     assessments and making such recommendations, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(i) consider safety concerns including those identified 
     by the Federal Food and Drug Administration;
       ``(ii) use available data and evaluations, with priority 
     given to randomized controlled trials, to examine clinical 
     effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, safety, and 
     enhanced compliance with a drug regimen;
       ``(iii) use the same classes of drugs developed by the 
     United States Pharmacopeia for this part;
       ``(iv) consider evaluations made by--

       ``(I) the Director under section 1013 of the Medicare 
     Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
     2003;
       ``(II) other Federal entities, such as the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs; and
       ``(III) other private and public entities, such as the Drug 
     Effectiveness Review Project and State plans under title XIX; 
     and

       ``(v) recommend to the Secretary--

       ``(I) those drugs in a class that provide a greater 
     clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or less 
     risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same class 
     that should be included in the formulary;
       ``(II) those drugs in a class that provide less clinical 
     benefit, including greater safety concerns or a greater risk 
     of side-effects, than another drug in the same class that 
     should be excluded from the formulary; and
       ``(III) drugs in a class with same or similar clinical 
     benefit for which it would be appropriate for the Secretary 
     to competitively bid (or negotiate) for placement on the 
     formulary.

       ``(C) Consideration of ahrq recommendations.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, after taking into 
     consideration the recommendations under subparagraph (B)(v), 
     shall establish a formulary, and formulary incentives, to 
     encourage use of covered part D drugs that--

       ``(I) have a lower cost and provide a greater clinical 
     benefit than other drugs;
       ``(II) have a lower cost than other drugs with the same or 
     similar clinical benefit; and
       ``(III) drugs that have the same cost but provide greater 
     clinical benefit than other drugs.

       ``(ii) Formulary incentives.--The formulary incentives 
     under clause (i) may be in the form of one or more of the 
     following:

       ``(I) Tiered copayments.
       ``(II) Reference pricing.
       ``(III) Prior authorization.
       ``(IV) Step therapy.
       ``(V) Medication therapy management.
       ``(VI) Generic drug substitution.

       ``(iii) Flexibility.--In applying such formulary incentives 
     the Secretary may decide not to impose any cost-sharing for a 
     covered part D drug for which--

       ``(I) the elimination of cost sharing would be expected to 
     increase compliance with a drug regimen; and
       ``(II) compliance would be expected to produce savings 
     under part A or B or both.

       ``(3) Limitations on formulary.--In any formulary 
     established under this subsection, the formulary may not be 
     changed during a year, except--
       ``(A) to add a generic version of a covered part D drug 
     that entered the market;
       ``(B) to remove such a drug for which a safety problem is 
     found; and
       ``(C) to add a drug that the Secretary identifies as a drug 
     which treats a condition for which there has not previously 
     been a treatment option or for which a clear and significant 
     benefit has been demonstrated over other covered part D 
     drugs.
       ``(4) Adding drugs to the initial formulary.--
       ``(A) Use of advisory committee.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and appoint an advisory committee (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the `advisory committee')--
       ``(i) to review petitions from drug manufacturers, health 
     care provider organizations, patient groups, and other 
     entities for inclusion of a drug in, or other changes to, 
     such formulary; and
       ``(ii) to recommend any changes to the formulary 
     established under this subsection.
       ``(B) Composition.--The advisory committee shall be 
     composed of 9 members and shall include representatives of 
     physicians, pharmacists, and consumers and others with 
     expertise in evaluating prescription drugs. The Secretary 
     shall select members based on their knowledge of 
     pharmaceuticals and the Medicare population. Members shall be 
     deemed to be special Government employees

[[Page 2087]]

     for purposes of applying the conflict of interest provisions 
     under section 208 of title 18, United States Code, and no 
     waiver of such provisions for such a member shall be 
     permitted.
       ``(C) Consultation.--The advisory committee shall consult, 
     as necessary, with physicians who are specialists in treating 
     the disease for which a drug is being considered.
       ``(D) Request for studies.--The advisory committee may 
     request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or an 
     academic or research institution to study and make a report 
     on a petition described in subparagraph (A)(i) in order to 
     assess--
       ``(i) clinical effectiveness;
       ``(ii) comparative effectiveness;
       ``(iii) safety; and
       ``(iv) enhanced compliance with a drug regimen.
       ``(E) Recommendations.--The advisory committee shall make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding--
       ``(i) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide a 
     greater clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or 
     less risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same 
     class that is currently included in the formulary and should 
     be included in the formulary;
       ``(ii) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide 
     less clinical benefit, including greater safety concerns or a 
     greater risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same 
     class that is currently included in the formulary and should 
     not be included in the formulary; and
       ``(iii) whether a covered part D drug has the same or 
     similar clinical benefit to a drug in the same class that is 
     currently included in the formulary and whether the drug 
     should be included in the formulary.
       ``(F) Limitations on review of manufacturer petitions.--The 
     advisory committee shall not review a petition of a drug 
     manufacturer under subparagraph (A)(i) with respect to a 
     covered part D drug unless the petition is accompanied by the 
     following:
       ``(i) Raw data from clinical trials on the safety and 
     effectiveness of the drug.
       ``(ii) Any data from clinical trials conducted using active 
     controls on the drug or drugs that are the current standard 
     of care.
       ``(iii) Any available data on comparative effectiveness of 
     the drug.
       ``(iv) Any other information the Secretary requires for the 
     advisory committee to complete its review.
       ``(G) Response to recommendations.--The Secretary shall 
     review the recommendations of the advisory committee and if 
     the Secretary accepts such recommendations the Secretary 
     shall modify the formulary established under this subsection 
     accordingly. Nothing in this section shall preclude the 
     Secretary from adding to the formulary a drug for which the 
     Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or 
     the advisory committee has not made a recommendation.
       ``(H) Notice of changes.--The Secretary shall provide 
     timely notice to beneficiaries and health professionals about 
     changes to the formulary or formulary incentives.
       ``(f) Informing Beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall take 
     steps to inform beneficiaries about the availability of a 
     Medicare operated drug plan or plans including providing 
     information in the annual handbook distributed to all 
     beneficiaries and adding information to the official public 
     Medicare website related to prescription drug coverage 
     available through this part.
       ``(g) Application of All Other Requirements for 
     Prescription Drug Plans.--Except as specifically provided in 
     this section, any Medicare operated drug plan shall meet the 
     same requirements as apply to any other prescription drug 
     plan, including the requirements of section 1860D-4(b)(1) 
     relating to assuring pharmacy access.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan.--A Medicare operated prescription drug plan (as 
     defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered nationally 
     in accordance with section 1860D-11A.''.
       (2)(A) Section 1860D-3 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-103) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Provisions Only Applicable in 2006 Through 2013.--The 
     provisions of this section shall only apply with respect to 
     2006 through 2013.''.
       (B) Section 1860D-11(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     111(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) No authority for fallback plans after 2013.--A 
     fallback prescription drug plan shall not be available after 
     December 31, 2013.''.
       (3) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-113(c)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or a Medicare operated prescription drug 
     plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
       (4) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the 
     operation of Medicare operated prescription drug plans under 
     section 1860D-11A.''.
       (5) Section 1860D-41(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term 
     `Medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.

     SEC. 3. IMPROVED APPEALS PROCESS UNDER THE MEDICARE OPERATED 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.

       Section 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1305w-104(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Appeals process for medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a well-
     defined process for appeals for denials of benefits under 
     this part under the Medicare operated prescription drug plan. 
     Such process shall be efficient, impose minimal 
     administrative burdens, and ensure the timely procurement of 
     non-formulary drugs or exemption from formulary incentives 
     when medically necessary. Medical necessity shall be based on 
     professional medical judgment, the medical condition of the 
     beneficiary, and other medical evidence. Such appeals process 
     shall include--
       ``(i) an initial review and determination made by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(ii) for appeals denied during the initial review and 
     determination, the option of an external review and 
     determination by an independent entity selected by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Consultation in development of process.--In 
     developing the appeals process under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall consult with consumer and patient groups, as 
     well as other key stakeholders to ensure the goals described 
     in subparagraph (A) are achieved.''.


                                  Alliance for a Just Society,

                                                February 28, 2013.
     Reduce Pharmaceutical Prices--Do Not Cut Benefits

       Dear President Obama and Senator/Representative: We have 
     noted with great concern that federal budget discussions have 
     included the possibility of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. We 
     wish to be clear: We strongly oppose such an approach and 
     believe it to be both unnecessary and a no-growth policy for 
     an economy that remains stagnant.
       Medicare and Medicaid not only provide critical protections 
     against the economic deprivation caused by illness, 
     especially for older Americans; they also create jobs and 
     boost an economy that is slumbering. Cutting these programs 
     leads this country in the wrong direction.
       We cannot continue to unravel these critical programs for 
     working families, the elderly, and the poor. If the Congress 
     is unable to move forward without some compromise that 
     reduces our national commitment to quality Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs, there is a source for reductions that will 
     not harm beneficiaries: the cost of prescription drugs.
       The U.S. pays more for prescriptions than any nation in the 
     world. Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries pay more for 
     medicines than do our veterans and the clients of the 
     National Indian Health Service. Why do these differences in 
     cost persist? They do so because other countries, the VA, and 
     the IHS negotiate the prices for prescriptions, while 
     Medicare and Medicaid programs do not.
       According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 
     savings to the federal government over the next decade would 
     be as high as $541.3 billion. The saving to the states would 
     be as high as $72.7 billion, and beneficiaries would save 
     $112.4 billion. These amounts are far in excess of the demand 
     for expenditure reductions being suggested by the most 
     strident deficit reduction advocates.
       We are more than 275 national and state organizations, and 
     we are opposed to cutting health care benefits for the 
     elderly and the poor. However, saving money by negotiating 
     drug prices would be beneficial to the entire health care 
     system, in addition to saving money for the federal 
     government and the states. We urge you to pursue this policy 
     as a major part of efforts to reduce health care costs.
           Sincerely,


                                National

       9to5, AFL-CIO, AFSCME (American Federation of State, County 
     and Municipal Employees), Alliance for a Just Society, 
     Alliance for Retired Americans, Association of Asian Pacific 
     Community Health Organizations, Campaign for America's 
     Future, Campaign for Community Change, Center for Popular 
     Democracy, Coalition on Human Needs, Community Action 
     Partnership, Community Organizations in Action, Grassroots

[[Page 2088]]

     Policy Project, HCAN (Health Care for America Now!), 
     Institute for Policy Studies, Break the Chain Campaign, Jobs 
     With Justice, Leadership Center for Common Good, National 
     Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association.
       National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug 
     Prices--20 signers (see attached letter): Rep. Sharon Engle 
     Treat (ME), Rep. Nickie Antonia (OH), Rep. Sheryl Briggs 
     (ME), Sen. Capri Cafaro (OH), Rep. Michael Foley (OH), Sen. 
     Dede Feldman (NM), Assemblyperson Richard N. Gottfried (NY), 
     Sen. Jack Hatch (IO), Sen. Karen Keiser (WA), Sen. Sue Malek 
     (MT), Sen. Kevin Mullin (VT), Rep. Don Perdue (WV), Rep. 
     Elizabeth B. Ritter (CT), Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (NH), Rep. 
     Linda Sanborn (ME), Rep. Shay Shual-Berke (MD), Sen. Michael 
     J. Skindell (OH), Rep. Peter Stuckey (ME), Rep. Roy Takumi 
     (HI), Rep. Joan Welsh (ME).
       National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National 
     Health Law Program, National Korean American Service & 
     Education Consortium, National People's Action, National 
     Women's Health Network, New Bottom Line, PICO National 
     Network,
       Progressive Democrats of America, Racial and Ethnic Health 
     Disparities Coalition, Raising Women's Voices for the Health 
     Care We Need, Rights to the City, Service Employees 
     International Union, Social Security Works, UAW (United Auto 
     Workers), Universal Health Care Action Network, USAction, 
     Working America, AFL-CIO, Working Families Party.


                                Alabama

       Federation Of Child Care Centers of Alabama.


                                Arkansas

       Arkansas Community Organizations.


                               California

       9to5 California, Alliance of Californians for Community 
     Empowerment, Center for Third World Organizing, People 
     Organized for Westside Renewal, PICO California, San Diego 
     Organizing Project, California Childcare Coordinators 
     Association, California PIRG, Children's Defense Fund--
     California, Community Health Council, Elsdon, Inc., 
     Greenlining Institute, Molina Healthcare of California, 
     National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter.


                                Colorado

       9to5 Colorado, Colorado Progressive Coalition, Colorado 
     Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, 
     Together Colorado.


                              Connecticut

       Connecticut Citizen Action Group.


                                Florida

       Central Florida Jobs with Justice, Community Business 
     Association, Florida CHAIN, Florida Chinese Federation, 
     Florida Civic Rights Association--Asian American Affairs, 
     Florida Coalition on Black Civic Participation (FCBCP), 
     Florida Consumer Action Network, Florida Consumer Action 
     Network Foundation, Florida Institute for Reform & 
     Empowerment, Florida New Majority, Florida Watch Action, 
     Labor Council for Latin American Advancement of Central 
     Florida (LCLAA of CF), National Congress of Black Women, 
     Organization of Chinese Americans--South Florida Chapter, 
     Organize Now, South Florida Jobs with Justice, United Chinese 
     Association of Florida.


                                Georgia

       9to5 Atlanta, Georgia Rural Urban Summit.


                                 Hawaii

       Faith Action for Community Equity.


                                 Idaho

       Idaho Community Action Network, Idaho Main Street Alliance, 
     Indian People's Action, United Action for Idaho, United 
     Vision for Idaho.


                                Illinois

       AFSCME Council 31, Chicago Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, 
     Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition of Labor Union Women 
     (CLUW), Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans (IARA), 
     Illinois Indiana Regional Organizing Network, Jane Addams 
     Senior Caucus, Lakeview Action Coalition, Northside 
     P.O.W.E.R., Public Action Foundation.


                                Indiana

       Northwest Indiana Federation of Interfaith Organizations.


                                  Iowa

       Iowa Citizen Action Network, Iowa Citizen Action Network 
     Foundation, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa 
     Main Street Alliance.


                               Louisiana

       Micah Project--New Orleans, PICO Louisiana.


                                 Maine

       Consumers for Affordable Healthcare, Maine Equal Justice 
     Partners, Maine People's Alliance, Maine People's Resource 
     Center, Maine Small Business Coalition, MSEA-SEIU Local 1989, 
     Prescription Policy Choices.


                                Maryland

       Maryland Communities United.


                             Massachusetts

       Disability Policy Consortium.


                                Michigan

       Harriet Tubman Center--Detroit, Metropolitan Coalition of 
     Congregations, Metro Detroit, Michigan Citizen Action, 
     Michigan Citizen Education Fund, Michigan Organizing 
     Collaborative.


                               Minnesota

       AFSCME Council 5, CWA Minnesota State Council, Health Care 
     for All--Minnesota, ISAIAH, Jewish Community Action, 
     Minnesota AFL--CIO, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, 
     Moveon.org Twin Cities Council, Physicians for a National 
     Health Plan--Minnesota, SEIU Local 284, SEIU Minnesota State 
     Council, Take Action Minnesota, UFCW Local 1189, Universal 
     Health Care Action Network--Minnesota.


                                Missouri

       Communities Creating Opportunity, GRO (Grass Roots 
     Organizing), Metropolitan Congregations United, Missouri 
     Progressive Vote Coalition, Missouri Citizen Education Fund, 
     Missouri Jobs with Justice, Missourians Organizing for 
     Change, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, 
     Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Progress Missouri.


                                Montana

       AFSCME Council 9, Big Sky CLC--Helena, Greater Yellowstone 
     CLC--Billings, Indian People's Action, MEA-MFT, Missoula Area 
     CLC, Montana Alliance for Retired Americans, Montana 
     Organizing Project, Montana Small Business Alliance, MT AFL-
     CIO State Federation, MT-HCAN, SEIU Healthcare 775 NW, 
     Southcentral Montana CLC--Bozeman, Southwestern Montana CLC--
     Butte.


                                Nebraska

       Nebraska Urban Indian Health Clinic.


                                 Nevada

       Dream Big Las Vegas, Nevada Immigration Coalition, PLAN 
     Action, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Uniting 
     Communities of Nevada.


                             New Hampshire

       Granite State Organizing Project, New Hampshire Citizens 
     Alliance, New Hampshire Citizens Alliance for Action.


                               New Jersey

       New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Citizen Action 
     Education Fund, PICO New Jersey, New Jersey Communities 
     United.


                               New Mexico

       Organizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLE).


                                New York

       Center for Independence of the Disabled--NY, Citizen Action 
     of New York and Public Policy and Education Fund, Community 
     Service Society of New York, Health Care for All New York, 
     Institute of Puerto Rican/Hispanic Elderly Inc. Make the Road 
     New York, Medicaid Matters New York, Metro New York Health 
     Care for All Campaign, New York Communities for Change, New 
     Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, Professional Staff 
     Congress at CUNY Local 2334--AFT, Public Policy and Education 
     Fund of New York, Small Business United, Syracuse United 
     Neighbor.


                             North Carolina

       Action North Carolina, Disability Rights NC, North Carolina 
     Fair Share, North Carolina Justice Center, Unifour OneStop 
     Collaborative.


                                  Ohio

       Communities United for Action, Contact Center, Fair Share 
     Research and Education Fund, Mahoning Valley Organizing 
     Collaborative, Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans 
     Educational Fund, Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Progress 
     Ohio, Progressive Democrats of America--Ohio Chapter, The 
     People's Empowerment Coalition of Ohio, Toledo Area Jobs with 
     Justice & Interfaith Worker Justice Coalition, UHCAN Ohio.


                                 Oregon

       Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, Center for 
     Intercultural Organizing, Fair Share Research and Education 
     Fund, Main Street Alliance of Oregon, Oregon Action, Oregon 
     Women's Action for New Directions, Rural Organizing Project, 
     Portland Jobs with Justice, Urban League.


                              Pennsylvania

       ACHIEVA, ACTION United, Be Well! Pittsburgh, Beaver County 
     NOW, Consumer Health Coalition, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of 
     Pennsylvania, Maternity Care Coalition, New Voices 
     Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Justice, 
     Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, Philadelphia 
     Unemployment Project, Women's Law Project.


                              Rhode Island

       Ocean State Action, Ocean State Action Fund.


                               Tennessee

       Tennessee Citizen Action, Tennessee Citizen Action 
     Alliance.


                                Virginia

       SEIU Virginia 512, Virginia AFL-CIO, Virginia New Majority, 
     Virginia Organizing.


                               Washington

       AFGE Local 3937, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic 
     Empowerment, FUSE Washington, Health Care for All Washington, 
     Main Street Alliance of Washington, OneAmerica, Physicians 
     for a National Health Program--Western Washington,

[[Page 2089]]

     Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, SEIU Healthcare 
     1199NW, SEIU Local 6, SEIU Local 775, SEIU Healthcare 775NW, 
     Spokane Peace and Justice Action League, Washington CAN! 
     Education and Research Fund, Washington CARE Campaign, 
     Washington Community Action Network Education, Washington 
     Fair Trade Coalition, Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, 
     Working Washington.


                             West Virginia

       West Virginia Citizen Action Group, West Virginia Citizen 
     Action Education Fund.


                               Wisconsin

       9to5 Wisconsin, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Citizen Action 
     of Wisconsin Education Fund, Coalition of Wisconsin Aging 
     Groups, M&S Clinical Services Assessment Center, Milwaukee 
     Teachers Education Association (NEA), SEIU Healthcare 
     Wisconsin, SOPHIA--Stewards of Prophetic, Hopeful, 
     Intentional Action (Gamaliel), Wisconsin Federation of Nurses 
     and Health Professionals (AFT).
                                  ____

                                    National Committee To Preserve


                                   Social Security & Medicare,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2013.
     Hon. Dick Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Janice Schakowsky,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Schakowsky: On 
     behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the 
     National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 
     I am writing to express our support for the Medicare 
     Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act. We applaud this 
     effort because it would improve the Medicare program for 
     beneficiaries and reduce federal spending on prescriptions 
     drugs.
       We understand that your legislation would create one or 
     more Medicare-administered drug plans with uniform premiums, 
     providing seniors with the opportunity to purchase drugs 
     directly through the Medicare program. In addition, your 
     legislation would require the federal government to use its 
     purchasing power to negotiate lower prices on prescription 
     drugs for beneficiaries who enroll in the Medicare-
     administered plan. The Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     many state governments are able to deliver lower drug prices 
     because of price negotiation, and we believe that the federal 
     government should be able to receive the best price available 
     for Medicare prescription drugs. Finally, we appreciate that 
     your legislation establishes an advisory committee to assess 
     a public formulary and streamlines the Medicare Part D 
     appeals process, which will help all beneficiaries.
       Thank you for your continued leadership on Medicare, 
     particularly for identifying ways to reduce Medicare spending 
     without shifting costs to beneficiaries. We look forward to 
     working with you to enact this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Max Richtman,
                                                President and CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Moran):
  S. 411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
and modify the railroad track maintenance credit; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleagues 
Senators, Crapo, Wyden, and Moran in introducing the Short Line 
Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2013, legislation to 
extend for 3 years the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax 
credit.
  In the 112th Congress, I introduced a 6-year extension of this 
credit. Despite the often contentious atmosphere of the 112th Congress, 
during which my colleagues found little they could agree on, the short 
line rail credit was a bipartisan success story, with my legislation 
attracting more than 50 bipartisan cosponsors.
  ``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible 
for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by 
large, trans-continental railroads. Supporting small railroads allows 
the communities surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and 
create jobs. The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in 
communities across America.
  This credit has real impact for the people of my state. West Virginia 
is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the country. Since 
the credit was enacted, it is estimated 750,000 railroad ties have been 
purchased above what would have otherwise been purchased with no 
incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly into jobs. This 
credit does not create just West Virginia jobs though. The ties, 
spikes, and rail this credit helps fund are almost entirely American 
made.
  Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This 
credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private 
sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation 
and improvements. Unfortunately, it is now scheduled to expire at the 
end of 2013.
  We were unable to enact a full 6-year extension of this important tax 
credit last Congress, but I was pleased that this credit was extended 
through the end of 2013 as part of the December 31st fiscal cliff deal.
  This Congress I want to do more. This credit, and the short line 
railroads that serve all of our constituents, deserve a meaningful 
extension. If this credit is allowed to expire at the end of the year, 
private-sector investments in infrastructure in our communities will 
fall by hundreds of millions of dollars.
  This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2016, providing the 
important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private-
sector transportation infrastructure investment. Over 50 members of 
this body sponsored legislation in the last Congress extending this 
credit and I hope there will be similar support again this year. I ask 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Portman, and Ms. 
        Klobuchar):
  S. 413. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to include human trafficking as a part 1 violent crime for 
purposes of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. 413

       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 ``Human Trafficking Reporting 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery.
       (2) According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
     2000 ``severe forms of trafficking in persons'' means--
       (A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is 
     induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person 
     induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; 
     or
       (B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, 
     or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the 
     use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of 
     subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, 
     or slavery.
       (3) There is an acute need for better data collection of 
     incidents of human trafficking across the United States in 
     order to effectively combat severe forms of trafficking in 
     persons.
       (4) The State Department's 2012 Trafficking in Persons 
     report found that--
       (A) the United States is a ``source, transit and 
     destination country for men, women, and children, subjected 
     to forced labor, debt bondage, domestic servitude and sex 
     trafficking,''; and
       (B) the United States needs to ``improve data collection on 
     human trafficking cases at the federal, state and local 
     levels''.
       (5) The International Organization for Migration has 
     reported that in order to effectively combat human 
     trafficking there must be reliable and standardized data, 
     however, the following barriers for data collection exist:
       (A) The illicit and underground nature of human 
     trafficking.
       (B) The reluctance of victims to share information with 
     authorities.
       (C) Insufficient human trafficking data collection and 
     research efforts by governments world-wide.
       (6) A 2009 report to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services entitled Human Trafficking Into and Within the 
     United States: A Review of the Literature found that ``the 
     data and methodologies for estimating the prevalence of human 
     trafficking globally and nationally are not well developed, 
     and therefore estimates have varied widely and changed 
     significantly over time''.
       (7) The Federal Bureau of Investigation compiles national 
     crime statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
       (8) Under current law, State and local governments 
     receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants are 
     required to share data on part 1 violent crimes with the

[[Page 2090]]

     Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the Uniform 
     Crime Reporting Program.
       (9) The addition of severe forms of trafficking in persons 
     to the definition of part 1 violent crimes will ensure that 
     statistics on this heinous crime will be compiled and 
     available through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
     Uniform Crime Report.

     SEC. 3. HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO BE INCLUDED IN PART 1 VIOLENT 
                   CRIMES FOR PURPOSES OF BYRNE GRANTS.

       Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Part 1 Violent Crimes To Include Human Trafficking.--
     For purposes of this section, the term `part 1 violent 
     crimes' shall include severe forms of trafficking in persons, 
     as defined in section 103(8) of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(8)).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Gillibrand, and 
        Mr. Pryor):
  S. 415. A bill to clarify the collateral requirement for certain 
loans under section 7(d) of the Small Business Act, to address 
assistance to out-of-State small business concerns, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an 
issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: 
Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep 
an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is 
following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, 
our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental 
damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently 
Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal disaster programs 
are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top 
priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of 
the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has 
tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the 
Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is 
spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any 
moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by 
Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind, we must 
ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools 
necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster.
  In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better 
tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the 
Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my 
colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for 
helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator 
Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the 
legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's 
disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds 
off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is 
responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of 
disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the 
most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they 
could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for 
the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA 
Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers, 
SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in 
Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a 
limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 
Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster 
area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic 
disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying 
out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is 
legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it 
reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were 
legitimate and there are funds available to do so.
  In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would 
clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that 
SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if 
those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The 
bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or 
greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is 
a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that 
this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of 
collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank 
my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve 
upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that 
I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct 
result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last 
year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that 
came out of these productive discussions.
  I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the 
Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 
that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A 
similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that 
Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement 
under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 
389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009 
by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress, 
this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62-
32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations 
Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed 
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into 
law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that 
this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and 
has previously passed both chambers of Congress.
  Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to 
business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. 
After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has 
consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for 
SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons 
behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring 
business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller 
SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is 
understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million. 
However, business owners complained about this requirement being 
instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their 
frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost 
everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. 
SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home 
as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets 
available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need 
for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and 
minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to 
secure loans.
  Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before 
my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of 
collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and 
my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its 
credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA 
does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current 
practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business 
demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines 
borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, 
SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best 
available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over 
$14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. 
SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I 
stated, the agency will

[[Page 2091]]

not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires 
borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is 
requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or 
$400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other 
assets available for SBA.
  This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending 
practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this 
legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a 
significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. 
Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on 
the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA 
disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a 
business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make 
immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that 
they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that 
the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if 
businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets 
are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still 
apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking 
smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans 
without significant burdens on their personal property. For the 
business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed 
clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding 
to disasters.
  To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of 
a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing 
and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA 
should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal 
residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating 
in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not 
just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are 
also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal 
homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business 
can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other 
assets.
  As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision 
that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of 
collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce 
the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes 
will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these 
legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it 
is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand 
they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current 
lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable 
collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business 
inventory; and furniture and fixtures.
  Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the 
Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to 
help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision 
authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide 
assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared 
disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered 
to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development 
efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are 
the university based resource partners that provide counseling and 
training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From 
2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they 
offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462 
per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services 
helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical 
following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help 
impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance 
programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For 
that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC 
counselors on the ground in disaster areas.
  For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana 
were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread 
damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the 
other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of 
disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from 
providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area. 
In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy 
but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from 
helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help 
recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their 
operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will 
respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale, 
catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant 
difference for impacted small businesses.
  In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent 
testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business 
Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small 
Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic 
relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they 
currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted 
that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the 
SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New 
Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with 
my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for 
recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many 
times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials, 
information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also 
later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster, 
staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of 
assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences 
gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many 
other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the 
needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these 
current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this 
legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in 
his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing 
SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the 
purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little 
different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however, 
I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these 
partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there 
post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened 
from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit 
from these partnerships with their counterparts.
  Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been 
passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during 
past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of 
bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was 
approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business 
Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was 
subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August 
3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before 
the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this 
provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229, 
the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted 
into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the 
112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on 
July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the 
``Small Business Jobs and

[[Page 2092]]

Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican colleagues Senators Snowe, 
Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all voted in support of the 
amendment. Although it was not ultimately enacted into law, the 
provision was subsequently included in separate pieces of legislation 
introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself. This provision was 
included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS Act of 2012'' that I 
introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433 of S. 3572, the 
``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Business Act of 
2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9, 2012.
  Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague 
Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses 
past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post-
disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides 
clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out-
of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic 
location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not 
left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the 
SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster 
area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these 
expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to 
do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on 
behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him 
to enact this provision into law.
  In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will 
greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the 
major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next, 
this approach has already received support from the following groups 
from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development 
Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest 
Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic 
Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic Partnership, 
and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that in mind, the 
Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can 
make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a disaster 
tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here to do: 
make good laws.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 415

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Disaster 
     Reform Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 7(d)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(d)(6)) is amended by inserting after ``which are made 
     under paragraph (1) of subsection (b)'' the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator, in obtaining the 
     best available collateral for a loan of not more than 
     $200,000 under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) 
     relating to damage to or destruction of the property of, or 
     economic injury to, a small business concern, shall not 
     require the owner of the small business concern to use the 
     primary residence of the owner as collateral if the 
     Administrator determines that the owner has other assets with 
     a value equal to or greater than the amount of the loan that 
     could be used as collateral for the loan: Provided further, 
     That nothing in the preceding proviso may be construed to 
     reduce the amount of collateral required by the Administrator 
     in connection with a loan described in the preceding proviso 
     or to modify the standards used to evaluate the quality 
     (rather than the type) of such collateral''.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO OUT-OF-STATE SMALL BUSINESSES.

       Section 21(b)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3) At the discretion'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Assistance to out-of-state small businesses.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the discretion''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Disaster recovery assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--At the discretion of the Administrator, 
     the Administrator may authorize a small business development 
     center to provide assistance, as described in subsection (c), 
     to a small business concern located outside of the State, 
     without regard to geographic proximity, if the small business 
     concern is located in an area for which the President has 
     declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170), during the period of the declaration.
       ``(ii) Continuity of services.--A small business 
     development center that provides counselors to an area 
     described in clause (i) shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure continuity of services in any State in 
     which the small business development center otherwise 
     provides services.
       ``(iii) Access to disaster recovery facilities.--For 
     purposes of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, permit the personnel of a 
     small business development center to use any site or facility 
     designated by the Administrator for use to provide disaster 
     recovery assistance.''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that, subject to the 
     availability of funds, the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall, to the extent practicable, 
     ensure that a small business development center is 
     appropriately reimbursed for any legitimate expenses incurred 
     in carrying out activities under section 21(b)(3)(B) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(b)(3)(B)), as added by this 
     Act.
                                     Association of Small Business


                                          Development Centers,

                                     Burke, VA, February 10, 2013.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: Thank you for giving the Association 
     of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) the opportunity 
     to comment on your proposed legislative amendments to the 
     disaster assistance provisions in the Small Business Act (15 
     USC 631 et seq.).
       While Congress has taken a significant step in addressing 
     the resource issues following Sandy and other disasters there 
     are still restrictions in the SBDC assistance authority and 
     the US Small Business Administration's loan making authority 
     that could complicate future disaster recovery efforts. We 
     applaud your efforts to deal with those issues.
       Under section 21(b)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 USC 
     648(b)(3)) SBDCs are limited in their ability to provide 
     services across state lines. This prevents SBDCs dealing with 
     disaster recovery, like New York and New Jersey, from being 
     able to draw upon the resources available in our nationwide 
     network of nearly 1,000 centers with over 4,500 business 
     advisors. It likewise prevents states with great experience 
     in disaster recovery assistance like Louisiana and Florida, 
     from providing assistance to their colleagues.
       Your proposed legislation amends that SBDC geographic 
     service restriction for the purposes of providing disaster 
     support and assistance. Our Association wholeheartedly 
     endorses that change. Allowing SBDCs to share resources 
     across state lines or other boundaries for the purpose of 
     disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little 
     different from utilities sharing linemen. In addition, we 
     would like to note that this provision has been supported by 
     the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
     twice in previous Congresses.
       In addition, the ASBDC wishes to express its support for 
     your proposals to amend the collateral requirements in the 
     disaster loan program for loans under $200,000. SBDCs 
     routinely assist small business owners with their 
     applications for disaster loan assistance and have often 
     faced clients with qualms about some of those requirements.
       We share a common goal of putting small business on the 
     road to recovery after disaster strikes and getting capital 
     flowing is a key factor in meeting that goal. To that end, 
     ASBDC supports your efforts to ease collateral requirements 
     and help improve the flow of disaster funds to small business 
     applicants. We believe your proposal to limit the use of 
     personal homes as collateral on smaller loans is consistent 
     with the need to get capital flowing to affected businesses 
     and ease the stress on these businesses. We also agree that 
     this change will not undermine the underwriting standards of 
     the disaster loan program.
       Thank you again for kind attention and continuing support 
     of small business.
           Sincerely,
                                                C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe,
                                             President/CEO, ASBDC.

[[Page 2093]]

     
                                  ____
                                            International Economic


                                          Development Council,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2013.
     Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate.
     Hon. James E. Risch,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu and Senator Risch: On behalf of the 
     International Economic Development Council (IEDC), please 
     accept our appreciation for this opportunity to provide 
     comments related to proposed changes to federal disaster 
     assistance programs offered by the United States Small 
     Business Administration (SBA). Your continuing support of 
     these critical programs is worthy of praise and we thank you 
     for your leadership.
       IEDC has a strong history of supporting disaster planning 
     and recovery. Our organization, with a membership of over 
     4,000 dedicated professionals, responded to communities in 
     need following the 2005 hurricane season, the BP Gulf oil 
     spill and other disaster-related incidents by providing 
     economic development recovery assistance. We have continued 
     our work in this area through technical assistance projects 
     and partnerships with federal agencies and other non-
     governmental organizations. Our profession is invested in 
     helping our country prepare for and respond to disasters, 
     much the same as you and your colleagues on the Committee on 
     Small Business and Entrepreneurship. To this end, we support 
     proposed changes that will allow SBA to more effectively 
     deliver disaster recovery assistance to local businesses in 
     need of federal aid.
       Rebuilding the local economy must be a top priority 
     following a disaster, second only to saving lives and homes. 
     IEDC supports the targeted changing of the current collateral 
     requirements that state a business owner must place their 
     home up as collateral in order to secure an SBA disaster 
     business loan of $200,000 or less. In times of crisis, 
     affected business owners are understandably reluctant to 
     place their personal homes up as collateral in order to 
     obtain a much needed loan to rebuild their business. 
     Consequently, SBA loans put in place to help businesses 
     rebuild following a disaster go underutilized. As lawmakers, 
     you have a responsibility to protect the taxpayer, which is 
     why we understand the need for posting collateral of equal or 
     greater value to the amount of the loan. The proposed 
     targeted change that eliminates the specific requirement of 
     using a home as collateral to guarantee a loan of $200,000 or 
     less, and instead allowing business assets to act as 
     collateral, will promote greater utilization of the loans. 
     This is an idea we can all get behind; one that will lead to 
     greater, faster economic recovery.
       When disaster strikes, we should do everything in our power 
     to bring the full resources of the federal government to bear 
     in the impacted community. This includes, most especially, 
     bringing in top experts who can immediately begin helping 
     businesses and local economies recover. The national network 
     of over 1,100 Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) could 
     be an excellent resource to stricken communities. 
     Unfortunately, current rules prevent SBDC's from assisting 
     their counterparts in other jurisdictions. For example, those 
     communities in the mid-Atlantic and New England impacted by 
     Sandy are not able to benefit from the enormous amount of 
     knowledge and experience in storm recovery held by SBDCs in 
     Florida and the Gulf region. Certainly, we can all agree that 
     disasters warrant an extraordinary response and that response 
     must include qualified expertise from all corners of the 
     federal government.
       Forty to sixty percent of small businesses that close as a 
     result of a disaster do not reopen. This is an unacceptably 
     high number. We would not accept that level of loss in homes 
     and we cannot accept that level of loss in jobs; our 
     communities cannot sustain such losses and duty dictates we 
     make certain they don't have to. By enacting common sense 
     legislation, like that which is under consideration here, and 
     freeing the flow of capital and expertise, we are taking 
     concrete steps to give our small businesses and local 
     economies the greatest chance to recover.
       IEDC is your partner in the work of job creation. We thank 
     you for your leadership in support of small business and 
     stand ready to offer our assistance in this and future 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
     Paul L. Krutko,
       Chairman, International Economic Development Council and 
     President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK.
                                  ____

                                                       St. Tammany


                              Economic Development Foundation,

                                Mandeville, LA, February 19, 2013.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: The St. Tammany Economic Development 
     Foundation thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the 
     proposed amendments to the disaster assistance provisions in 
     the Small Business Act (15 US 631 et seq.). As we learned 
     from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and most recently Isaac, the 
     sooner our small businesses are able to recover, the better 
     it is for the region, the state and the nation.
       We fully endorse the proposed amendment to Section 1 of the 
     bill regarding collateral on business disaster loans. If 
     approved, no longer would small business owners have to use 
     their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA 
     disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets 
     are available of equal or greater value than the amount of 
     the loan. In times of crisis, affected business owners are 
     understandably reluctant to place their personal homes up as 
     collateral in order to obtain a much needed loan to rebuild 
     their business. Allowing business assets to act as collateral 
     will promote greater utilization of the loans; leading to 
     faster economic recovery.
       Under Section 2 of the bill, Small Business Development 
     Centers (SBDCs) are limited in their ability to provide 
     services across state lines. This prevents SBDCs in affected 
     areas from being able to draw upon the resources available 
     from their colleagues nationwide. Louisiana SBDCs have great 
     experience in disaster recovery assistance and should not be 
     prevented from providing assistance to their colleagues 
     outside of Louisiana in the event of disaster. Therefore, we 
     fully support this provision.
       We applaud your efforts to protect small businesses in the 
     wake of disasters and thank you for continuing to be a strong 
     advocate on their behalf. After all, small businesses are the 
     lifeblood of our great nation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Brenda Bertus,

                                   Executive Director, St. Tammany
     Economic Development Foundation.
                                  ____

                                                   North Louisiana


                                         economic partnership,

                                                February 26, 2013.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu, The North Louisiana Economic 
     Partnership thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the 
     proposed changes to the disaster assistance programs offered 
     by the United States Small Business Administration. The 
     proposed amendments to the Small Business Act (15 USC 631 et 
     seq.) will greatly enhance federal assistance to small 
     businesses recovering from disasters. NLEP applauds your 
     efforts to support our small businesses which make up the 
     backbone of the American economy.
       As a regional economic development organization promoting 
     North Louisiana, NLEP often works with businesses impacted by 
     natural or manmade disasters. The impact of these disasters 
     can temporarily or permanently shut down small businesses, 
     leaving both small business owners and their employees 
     without a livelihood. The SBA disaster programs offer a real 
     lifeline to these impacted businesses which have very few 
     options available to them. The proposed amendment to Section 
     1 of the bill regarding collateral for business disaster 
     loans would allow more small businesses to utilize the 
     disaster loan programs. If approved, small business owners 
     would no longer have to use their primary residence as 
     collateral toward a SBA disaster business loan of less than 
     $200,000, if other assets are available. During a widespread 
     disaster, the primary residence of business owners may also 
     be impacted and requiring them to use their home as 
     collateral would create an onerous burden and/or be 
     financially unfeasible. Eliminating this collateral 
     requirement opens up assistance to those businesses most 
     impacted by disaster, speeding recovery for businesses and a 
     region's economy.
       The second proposed change to Section 2 of the Small 
     Business Act would allow Small Business Development Centers 
     (SBDCs) to provide technical assistance to impacted small 
     businesses beyond the current 250 mile limitation. The 
     Louisiana Small Business Development Centers (LSBDCs) have 
     successfully worked with countless small businesses 
     devastated by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike, and 
     most recently the BP oil spill. The experience and expertise 
     that the LSBDC could have shared with the SBDCs in the New 
     York and New Jersey area would have enhanced their 
     capabilities to cope with Superstorm Sandy. In times of 
     disaster, it is essential to collaborate and pool resources 
     in order to speed up delivery of much needed assistance.
       For these reasons, the North Louisiana Economic Partnership 
     fully endorses the proposed amendments to the current SBA 
     legislation that would open up, enhance and efficiently 
     deliver disaster assistance to small businesses.
           Sincerely,

                                               Scott Martinez,

                                        President, North Louisiana
     Economic Partnership.
                                  ____

                                                 Bay Area Houston,


                                         Economic Partnership,

                                   Houston, TX, February 13, 2013.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: The Texas economy has outperformed 
     the rest of the country not only over the long term but also 
     during the recent recession. Our pro-business

[[Page 2094]]

     climate has been a huge contributing factor to that, and so 
     have Texas' small businesses. From 2002-2009, small 
     businesses of fewer than 10 employees fueled the Texas 
     employment engine, adding nearly 800,000 new jobs. When 
     disaster strikes the Gulf Coast, as it did with Hurricanes 
     Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, our small businesses are hit 
     hard. The sooner they are able to recover the better it is 
     for the region, the state, and the nation.
       This is why I am writing to support your proposed 
     legislative amendments to the disaster assistance provisions 
     in the Small Business Act (15 USC 631 et seq). Section 1 of 
     the bill addresses collateral on business disaster loans. If 
     approved, no longer would small business owners have to use 
     their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA 
     disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets 
     are available of equal or greater value than the amount of 
     the loan. This would certainly help to reduce anxiety on the 
     part of small business owners and their families who have 
     already experienced enough stress through damage to or total 
     destruction of their businesses.
       Section 2 of the bill includes the provision that 
     authorizes the Small Business Administration to allow out-of-
     state small business development centers to provide 
     assistance in presidentially-declared disaster areas, which 
     is currently not allowed. When Hurricane Ike devastated our 
     region in September 2008, we welcomed any and all kinds of 
     disaster relief. The northeast just experienced a similar 
     disaster with Hurricane Sandy. Utility crews from across the 
     nation responded quickly to each. State lines should never be 
     used to prevent aid from reaching disaster victims. The 
     majority of the membership of our organization is comprised 
     of small businesses. On their behalf, we fully endorse this 
     provision.
       Thank you for working to keep America's small businesses 
     strong and helping them to recover from major storms that we 
     know will strike again.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Bob Mitchell,

                                       President, Bay Area Houston
     Economic Partnership.
                                  ____

                                                     SWLA Economic


                                         Development Alliance,

                              Lake Charles, LA, February 25, 2013.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu, The Southwest Louisiana Economic 
     Development Alliance welcomes the opportunity to comment on 
     the proposed amendments to the disaster assistance provisions 
     in the Small Business Act (15 US 631 et seq.). As we learned 
     from Hurricanes Rita and Ike, the sooner our small businesses 
     are able to recover, the better it is for the region, the 
     state and the nation.
       We fully endorse the proposed amendment to Section 1 of the 
     bill regarding collateral on business disaster loans. If 
     approved, no longer would small business owners have to use 
     their primary personal residence for collateral towards SBA 
     disaster business loans less than $200,000 if other assets 
     are available of equal or greater value than the amount of 
     the loan. In times of crisis, affected business owners are 
     understandably reluctant to place their personal homes up as 
     collateral in order to obtain a much needed loan to rebuild 
     their business. Allowing business assets to act as collateral 
     will promote greater utilization of the loans; leading to 
     faster economic recovery.
       Under Section 2 of the bill, Small Business Development 
     Centers (SBDCs) are limited in their ability to provide 
     service across state lines. This prevents SBDCs in affected 
     areas from being able to draw upon the resources available 
     from their colleagues nationwide. Louisiana SBDCs have great 
     experience in disaster recovery assistance and should not be 
     prevented from providing assistance to their colleagues 
     outside of Louisiana in the event of disaster. Therefore, we 
     fully support this provision.
       About 85% of the members of the Chamber SWLA are small 
     businesses. We applaud your efforts to protect small 
     businesses in the wake of disasters and thank you for 
     continuing to be a strong advocate on their behalf.
           Sincerely,

                                                 George Swift,

                                                    President/CEO,
                               SWLA Economic Development Alliance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal):
  S. 418. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe 
regulations regarding the collection and use of personal information 
obtained by tracking the online activity of an individual, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Do-Not-Track 
Online Act of 2013. This bill is a critical step towards furthering 
consumer privacy. It empowers Americans to control their personal 
information online and provides them with the ability to prevent online 
companies from collecting and using that information for profit.
  Do-not-track is a simple concept. It allows consumers, with a simple 
click of the mouse, to tell every company that participates in the vast 
online ecosystem, ``Do not collect information about me. I care about 
my privacy. My personal information is not for sale. And I do not want 
my information used in ways I do not expect or approve.'' Under this 
bill, online companies would have to honor that user declaration or 
face penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, or State 
Attorneys General.
  This bill is necessary because the privacy of Americans is 
increasingly under assault as more and more of their daily lives are 
conducted online. Whether it is a person at home searching for a new 
job or home, a parent researching her sick child's symptoms and 
treatments using a health application, or a teenager using her 
smartphone while riding the subway, online companies are collecting 
massive amounts of information, often without consumers' knowledge or 
consent. A vast array of companies that consumers have never heard of 
are surreptitiously collecting this information in numerous ways: 
third-party advertising networks place ``cookies'' on computer web-
browsers to track the websites that consumers have visited; analytic 
and marketing companies identify individual computers by recognizing 
the unique configuration, or ``fingerprint,'' of web-browsers; and 
software applications installed on mobile devices, colloquially known 
as ``apps,'' collect, use, and share information about consumers' 
precise locations, contact lists, photographs, and other personal 
matters. All of this information can be combined and stored on computer 
servers around the world and used for a variety of purposes, ranging 
from website analytics to online behavioral advertising to the creation 
of comprehensive dossiers by data brokers that build and sell personal 
profiles about hundreds of millions of individual Americans.
  My bill would empower consumers, if they so choose, to stem the tide. 
It would give them the means to prohibit the collection of their 
information from the start. Consumers would be able to tell companies 
collecting their personal information that they want those collection 
practices to stop. At the same time, the bill would preserve the 
ability of those online companies to conduct their business and deliver 
the content and services that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. 
The bill would grant the FTC rulemaking authority to use its expertise 
to protect the privacy interests of consumers while addressing the 
legitimate needs of industry.
  The key to this bill is its simplicity. For over a decade in the 
Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, we have tried to determine 
how online companies can provide clear and conspicuous notice to 
consumers about their information practices and--once this notice has 
been given--further determine how consumers can either opt-in or opt-
out of those information collection practices. Yet today, privacy 
policies are still far too long, too complicated, and too full of 
technical legalese for any reasonable consumer to read, let alone 
understand. The failures of these notices are even clearer when placed 
on the exploding number of mobile devices on which consumers have grown 
to rely. My bill avoids this messy ``rabbit hole'' of policy 
considerations and creates an easy mechanism that gives consumers the 
opportunity to simply say ``no thank you'' to anyone and everyone 
collecting their online information. Period.
  Let me also say a few words about what this bill does not do. My bill 
would not ``break the Internet,'' as I am sure we will hear from 
opponents. The truth is that my bill makes every necessary 
accommodation for online companies to continue providing content and 
services to consumers. For instance, websites and applications would 
still be able collect data to deliver the content and functionality 
that consumers have requested, perform internal analytics, improve 
performance, and prevent fraud. My bill

[[Page 2095]]

would also allow online companies to collect and maintain consumer 
information when it has been voluntarily provided by the consumer. They 
could also collect data that is truly anonymous. Finally, consumers 
could allow companies they trust to collect and use their information 
by giving specific consent that overrides a general do-not-track 
preference. But, when consumers say that they do not want to be 
tracked, online companies would no longer be allowed to ignore this 
request and collect and use this information for any extraneous 
purpose. Moreover, these companies would be obligated to immediately 
destroy or anonymize the information once it is no longer needed to 
provide the service requested.
  I think it is worth noting that since 2010, the FTC has called for a 
do-not-track solution. The commission has stated that any effective do-
not-track system should be simple, easy to use, and persistent, and 
that, if implemented, it should prevent the collection of consumers' 
online data. The private sector has also taken notice and similarly 
recognized the utility of do-not-track for its users. Nearly every 
popular web browser now allows consumers to affirmatively declare a do-
not-track preference to websites. The problem is that online companies 
have no legal obligation to honor this request and, in fact, many have 
gone so far as to outright refuse to do so. In February 2012, industry 
leaders stood at the White House and publicly declared their commitment 
to honor do-not-track requests from web browsers. Yet since that time, 
industry has failed to live up to those commitments. The online 
advertising industry has articulated huge exemptions to its pledge to 
limit the collection of information--exceptions that undermine the very 
self-regulatory programs the industry has promoted as effective. This 
industry has emphasized consumer choice yet has made statements 
publicly refusing to honor new do-not-track browser features. My bill 
would put an end to this gamesmanship and nonsense.
  My bill is only part of the ongoing discussion on consumer privacy in 
Congress. It is simple, yet powerful. It allows consumers, if they 
choose, and I should emphasize that many will not make such a choice, 
to stop the mind-boggling number of online companies that are 
collecting vast amounts of their information. It gives consumers an 
easy-to-use tool that will implement their choices effectively in a 
complex, rapidly-changing online world. It prohibits those lurking in 
the cyber-shadows from profiting off of the personal, private 
information of ordinary Americans. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this and other privacy legislative efforts in the 
Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor.
  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. 418

       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 ``Do-Not-Track Online Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO ``DO-NOT-TRACK'' MECHANISMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     promulgate--
       (1) regulations that establish standards for the 
     implementation of a mechanism by which an individual can 
     simply and easily indicate whether the individual prefers to 
     have personal information collected by providers of online 
     services, including by providers of mobile applications and 
     services; and
       (2) rules that prohibit, except as provided in subsection 
     (b), such providers from collecting personal information on 
     individuals who have expressed, via a mechanism that meets 
     the standards promulgated under paragraph (1), a preference 
     not to have such information collected.
       (b) Exception.--The rules promulgated under paragraph (2) 
     of subsection (a) shall allow for the collection and use of 
     personal information on an individual described in such 
     paragraph, notwithstanding the expressed preference of the 
     individual via a mechanism that meets the standards 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) of such subsection, to the 
     extent--
       (1) necessary to provide a service requested by the 
     individual, including with respect to such service, basic 
     functionality and effectiveness, so long as such information 
     is anonymized or deleted upon the provision of such service; 
     or
       (2) the individual--
       (A) receives clear, conspicuous, and accurate notice on the 
     collection and use of such information; and
       (B) affirmatively consents to such collection and use.
       (c) Factors.--In promulgating standards and rules under 
     subsection (a), the Federal Trade Commission shall consider 
     and take into account the following:
       (1) The appropriate scope of such standards and rules, 
     including the conduct to which such rules shall apply and the 
     persons required to comply with such rules.
       (2) The technical feasibility and costs of--
       (A) implementing mechanisms that would meet such standards; 
     and
       (B) complying with such rules.
       (3) Mechanisms that--
       (A) have been developed or used before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) are for individuals to indicate simply and easily 
     whether the individuals prefer to have personal information 
     collected by providers of online services, including by 
     providers of mobile applications and services.
       (4) How mechanisms that meet such standards should be 
     publicized and offered to individuals.
       (5) Whether and how information can be collected and used 
     on an anonymous basis so that the information--
       (A) cannot be reasonably linked or identified with a person 
     or device, both on its own and in combination with other 
     information; and
       (B) does not qualify as personal information subject to the 
     rules promulgated under subsection (a)(2).
       (6) The standards under which personal information may be 
     collected and used, subject to the anonymization or deletion 
     requirements of subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) to fulfill the basic functionality and effectiveness of 
     an online service, including a mobile application or service;
       (B) to provide the content or services requested by 
     individuals who have otherwise expressed, via a mechanism 
     that meets the standards promulgated under subsection (a)(1), 
     a preference not to have personal information collected; and
       (C) for such other purposes as the Commission determines 
     substantially facilitates the functionality and effectiveness 
     of the online service, or mobile application or service, in a 
     manner that does not undermine an individual's preference, 
     expressed via such mechanism, not to collect such 
     information.
       (d) Rulemaking.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
     promulgate the standards and rules required by subsection (a) 
     in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF ``DO-NOT-TRACK'' MECHANISMS.

       (a) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--
       (1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.--A violation of 
     a rule promulgated under section 2(a)(2) shall be treated as 
     an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of a 
     regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or 
     deceptive acts or practices.
       (2) Powers of commission.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the 
     same manner, by the same means, and with the same 
     jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable 
     terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of 
     this Act.
       (B) Privileges and immunities.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), any person who violates this Act shall be 
     subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and 
     immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
       (C) Nonprofit organizations.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     shall enforce this Act with respect to an organization that 
     is not organized to carry on business for its own profit or 
     that of its members as if such organization were a person 
     over which the Commission has authority pursuant to section 
     5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     45(a)(2)).
       (b) Enforcement by States.--
       (1) In general.--In any case in which the attorney general 
     of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the 
     residents of the State has been or is threatened or adversely 
     affected by the engagement of any person subject to a rule 
     promulgated under section 2(a)(2) in a practice that violates 
     the rule, the attorney general of the State may, as parens 
     patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of 
     the State in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States--
       (A) to enjoin further violation of such rule by such 
     person;
       (B) to compel compliance with such rule;
       (C) to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation 
     on behalf of such residents;
       (D) to obtain such other relief as the court considers 
     appropriate; or

[[Page 2096]]

       (E) to obtain civil penalties in the amount determined 
     under paragraph (2).
       (2) Civil penalties.--
       (A) Calculation.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for purposes 
     of imposing a civil penalty under paragraph (1)(E) with 
     respect to a person that violates a rule promulgated under 
     section 2(a)(2), the amount determined under this paragraph 
     is the amount calculated by multiplying the number of days 
     that the person is not in compliance with the rule by an 
     amount not greater than $16,000.
       (B) Maximum total liability.--The total amount of civil 
     penalties that may be imposed with respect to a person that 
     violates a rule promulgated under section 2(a)(2) shall not 
     exceed $15,000,000 for all civil actions brought against such 
     person under paragraph (1) for such violation.
       (C) Adjustment for inflation.--Beginning on the date on 
     which the Bureau of Labor Statistics first publishes the 
     Consumer Price Index after the date that is 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the amounts specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be 
     increased by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price 
     Index published on that date from the Consumer Price Index 
     published the previous year.
       (3) Rights of federal trade commission.--
       (A) Notice to federal trade commission.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the 
     attorney general of a State shall notify the Federal Trade 
     Commission in writing that the attorney general intends to 
     bring a civil action under paragraph (1) before initiating 
     the civil action.
       (ii) Contents.--The notification required by clause (i) 
     with respect to a civil action shall include a copy of the 
     complaint to be filed to initiate the civil action.
       (iii) Exception.--If it is not feasible for the attorney 
     general of a State to provide the notification required by 
     clause (i) before initiating a civil action under paragraph 
     (1), the attorney general shall notify the Federal Trade 
     Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action.
       (B) Intervention by federal trade commission.--The Federal 
     Trade Commission may--
       (i) intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney 
     general of a State under paragraph (1); and
       (ii) upon intervening--

       (I) be heard on all matters arising in the civil action; 
     and
       (II) file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil 
     action.

       (4) Investigatory powers.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of the State to conduct investigations, to 
     administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the attendance 
     of witnesses or the production of documentary or other 
     evidence.
       (5) Preemptive action by federal trade commission.--If the 
     Federal Trade Commission institutes a civil action or an 
     administrative action with respect to a violation of a rule 
     promulgated under section 2(a)(2), the attorney general of a 
     State may not, during the pendency of such action, bring a 
     civil action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named 
     in the complaint of the Commission for the violation with 
     respect to which the Commission instituted such action.
       (6) Venue; service of process.--
       (A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be 
     brought in--
       (i) the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code; or
       (ii) another court of competent jurisdiction.
       (B) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which 
     the defendant--
       (i) is an inhabitant; or
       (ii) may be found.
       (7) Actions by other state officials.--
       (A) In general.--In addition to civil actions brought by 
     attorneys general under paragraph (1), any other officer of a 
     State who is authorized by the State to do so may bring a 
     civil action under paragraph (1), subject to the same 
     requirements and limitations that apply under this subsection 
     to civil actions brought by attorneys general.
       (B) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
     construed to prohibit an authorized official of a State from 
     initiating or continuing any proceeding in a court of the 
     State for a violation of any civil or criminal law of the 
     State.

     SEC. 4. BIENNIAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT.

       Not later than 2 years after the effective date of the 
     regulations initially promulgated under section 2, the 
     Federal Trade Commission shall--
       (1) review the implementation of this Act;
       (2) assess the effectiveness of such regulations, including 
     how such regulations define or interpret the term ``personal 
     information'' as such term is used in section 2;
       (3) assess the effect of such regulations on online 
     commerce; and
       (4) submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     review and assessments required by this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 419. A bill to limit the use of cluster munitions; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster 
Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.
  Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of 
cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use 
cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.
  In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster 
munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; 
and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in 
areas normally inhabited by civilians.
  Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows 
the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions 
with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is 
vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.
  However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must 
issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the 
cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent 
civilians.
  Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that 
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual 
``bomblets.''
  They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations 
spread over a half mile radius.
  But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.
  In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians 
lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the 
age of 18.
  An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed 
by cluster munitions since 1991.
  During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of 
them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.
  Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.
  According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air-
dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.
  In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that 
helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One 
resident told Human Rights Watch:

       On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several 
     smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north 
     of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big 
     [bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not 
     detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded. 
     There were small holes in the ground. The holes were 
     dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

  Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions 
released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.
  Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian 
forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster 
munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.
  Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that 
many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to 
explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.
  One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

       I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I 
     saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the 
     streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I 
     saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

  One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including 
women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by 
an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his 
right arm.

[[Page 2097]]

  Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came 
across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded 
bomblet.
  Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they 
were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.
  Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's 
use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.
  However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we 
continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and 
our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their 
use.
  In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster 
munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an 
estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.
  According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million 
submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than 
one percent failure rate.
  That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.
  So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent 
standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster 
bombs with high failure rates.
  How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?
  While we wait, the international community has taken action.
  On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which 
would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and 
requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years--
formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries 
and ratified by 77 countries.
  This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United 
Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in 
Afghanistan.
  It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.
  But it does not include the United States.
  The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or 
sign the treaty.
  This is unacceptable.
  Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are 
``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''
  Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the 
face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster 
munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on 
cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, 
sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more 
than 1 percent would be prohibited.
  This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow 
the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more 
years.
  That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should 
take another look at this policy.
  In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 
of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to 
conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.
  On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security 
Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this 
review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.
  The administration should complete this review without delay.
  Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well-
known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?
  What does that say about us?
  The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet 
the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?
  This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former 
Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster 
munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster 
munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.
  Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and 
Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action 
until 2018.
  If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the 
Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to 
innocent civilians.
  We can do better.
  First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and 
President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of 
cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.
  That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the 
books.
  Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and 
extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high 
failure rates to our own arsenal.
  For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon 
to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of 
more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the 
President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to 
protect the security of the United States to do so.
  I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used 
cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on 
their use in Afghanistan since 2002.
  In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as 
committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by 
cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common-
sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly 
talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect 
opportunity to exercise it.
  Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath 
Souliyalat.
  Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled 
to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his 
eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.
  The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years 
ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, 
until his 16th birthday.
  Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over 
Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.
  According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one-
third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one 
percent of that area has been cleared.
  Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or 
injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians 
that the United States did not intend to target.
  After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had 
been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We 
have to do more.''
  I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the 
Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important initiative.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from 
California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Cluster Munitions 
Civilian Protection Act of 2013. It is identical to the bill that she 
and I have introduced in prior years, and I commend her for her 
persistence on this important humanitarian issue.
  I come to this issue having devoted much effort over many years to 
shining a spotlight on and doing what can be done to help innocent 
victims of war. In the last century, and continuing into this new 
century, noncombatants increasingly have borne the brunt of the 
casualties in armed conflicts across the globe. Limiting the use of 
weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines, and that 
have indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, are tangible, 
practical, meaningful things we can do to reduce these unnecessary 
casualties.
  Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But 
anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation that cluster 
munitions cause

[[Page 2098]]

over wide areas understands the unacceptable threat they pose to 
noncombatants. These are not the laser guided weapons the Pentagon 
showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad. To the 
contrary. Cluster munitions can kill and maim anyone within the 360 
degree range of flying shrapnel.
  There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to 
explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until 
they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is 
an unsuspecting child, or a farmer.
  Even now, in Laos today people are still being killed and maimed by 
millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the 1970s. That legacy, 
resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people 
who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a 
third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It 
is shameful that we have contributed less in the past 35 years to clean 
up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing.
  Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster 
munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also 
requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a 
requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against 
military targets.
  The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain 
the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which 
have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet 
the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018.
  Like Senator Feinstein I reject the notion that the United States can 
justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and 
injure innocent people including children, and which many of our allies 
have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and 
expects from the United States. If we have learned anything from 
Afghanistan it is that harming civilians, even unintentionally, creates 
enemies among those whose support we need, and undermines the mission 
of our troops.
  Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1 percent failure 
rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of 
enactment. However, our bill permits the President to waive the 1 
percent requirement if the President certifies that it is vital to 
protect the security of the United States. I would hope the Pentagon 
would recognize that this is in its best interest, and will work with 
us by supporting this reasonable step.
  Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions 
opened for signature in Dublin, at least 111 countries have signed the 
treaty including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia and 
other allies of the United States. However, the Bush Administration did 
not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and 
the Obama Administration has not signed it.
  Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless 
exercise, since it does not yet have the support of the United States 
and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India and 
Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning 
antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other 
countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has 
dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and 
stockpiled--and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any 
government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that 
it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is 
only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions.
  It is important to note that the United States today has the 
technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the 
requirements of our bill, as well as of the treaty. What is lacking is 
the political will to act. There is no excuse for continuing to use 
cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
  I urge the Obama administration to review its policy on cluster 
munitions and put the United States on a path to join the treaty as 
soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an 
important step in the right direction.
  I want again to thank and commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown 
such passion and steadfastness in raising this issue and seeking every 
opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Corker, and Mr. 
        Paul):
  S. 421. A bill to prohibit the Corps of Engineers from taking any 
action to establish a restricted area prohibiting public access to 
waters downstream of a dam, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
along with Senator McConnell, Senator Paul, and Senator Corker, to 
prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from restricting fishing 
rights in some of the best fishing areas in the States of Tennessee and 
Kentucky below 10 dams along the Cumberland River.
  I have talked with the Corps several times about this. They have told 
me the only solution is legislation. I am hoping there is some other 
solution by reasonable compromise.
  But I am taking the Corps's advice. On Tuesday, Congressman Ed 
Whitfield, of Kentucky, introduced legislation on this matter, and so I 
am introducing similar legislation today.
  I have also drafted language that could be included in an 
appropriations bill that would prevent the Corps of Engineers from 
using any funds to restrict fishing in what is called the tailwaters 
below these 10 Corps of Engineers dams on the Cumberland River.
  Today I spoke with the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. I urged 
him to have the Corps give Congress enough time to consider this 
matter, perhaps to work out something with the Corps by compromise or, 
if not, to pass legislation.
  On Monday, I am meeting with the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, who is in charge of the Corps of Engineers, to ask that 
the Corps stop taking any further action to build physical barriers 
along the Cumberland River.
  Earlier, I met with James DeLapp, the colonel who is the commander of 
the Nashville District. Then I met, along with Congressman Whitfield 
and Congressman Cooper of Nashville, TN, with MG Michael Walsh, who is 
the deputy commanding general. I have had a number of meetings on this 
subject, and I am determined to get some result, one way or the other.
  I am delighted to have the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, my 
colleague, Senator Corker from Tennessee, and Senator Rand Paul of 
Kentucky as cosponsors on the legislation.
  One may say, with a large number of problems facing our country--from 
Iran to the sequester--why is a Senator--in fact, four, and a number of 
Congressmen interested in fishing?
  There are 900,000 Tennesseeans who have fishing licenses, and one of 
my jobs is to represent them. I know and they know these are some of 
the best fishing areas in our State.
  This is an area where grandfathers and grandsons and granddaughters 
go on Saturdays and go during the week. There are lots of Tennesseeans 
who consider these prize properties and their lands. These are public 
lands, and they feel they have a right to be there.
  The problem is that the Corps of Engineers wants to erect physical 
barriers below the dams to keep the fishermen out of the area that is 
just below the dam.
  The Corps' goal is laudable. The goal is to improve safety, they say. 
We all support safety, but there are much better solutions than this.
  Let me give an analogy. When you have a railroad crossing, you do not 
keep the gate down at the railroad crossing 100 percent of the time. 
The track is not dangerous if the train is not coming.
  The water comes through these dams only 20 percent of the time, and 
the

[[Page 2099]]

water is not dangerous if the water is not spilling through the dams. 
So if we kept the gate down at the railroad crossing 100 percent of the 
time, we would never be able to travel anywhere. That is the same sort 
of reasoning we have here.
  From Washington, the Department of the Army is saying they have a 
policy, which they have had since 1996--which they have never applied 
on the Cumberland River--that suddenly they have decided, after all 
these years, they have to close the fishing area 100 percent of the 
time, even though it might be dangerous only 20 percent of the time.
  I am not the only one who thinks this is an unreasonable policy.
  Last week, I went to Old Hickory Dam, near Nashville. About 150 
fishermen were there with me on the banks of the Cumberland River. I 
met with the Corps officials. They turned the water on so I could see 
it spilling through the dam. Then they turned it off. I met with Ed 
Carter, the director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. I met 
with Mike Butler, the chief executive of the Tennessee Wildlife 
Federation. I have talked with the Kentucky wildlife people and this is 
what they say. They think the Corps' plans to improve safety are so 
unreasonable that the wildlife agencies will not even help them enforce 
it. But they say, on the other hand, there are reasonable ways to 
improve safety; that is, to treat the waters below the dam the way the 
Tennessee Valley Authority does, for example, which is to erect large 
signs--some of which already exist at Old Hickory Dam--blow the siren 
when the water is coming through. You can close the parking lot. You 
could patrol the area. There are lots of ways to put the gate down, in 
effect, on these fishing areas 20 percent of the time. That makes a lot 
of sense, and the local agencies are willing to help do that.
  Our legislation makes clear that for purposes of this act, installing 
and maintaining sirens, strobe lights, and signage for alerting the 
public of hazardous waters shall not be considered a part of the 
prohibition. It makes no sense to take these public lands and say to 
people: Well, the lawyers came in and said we need to be careful. Of 
course we need to be careful; however, being careful does not mean you 
keep the gate down over the railroad crossing 100 percent of the time, 
and it doesn't mean you close the area to fishing 100 percent of the 
time when it is dangerous only 20 percent of the time.
  I am also concerned about the $2.6 million the Corps needs to 
transfer from other parts of its budget to put up these physical 
barriers. Where is the money coming from? I thought we were in the 
middle of a big sequester, a big budget crunch. I thought we were out 
of money. One of the areas which has some of the most difficult 
problems to deal with is the Department of the Army. This is no time to 
be wasting money building barriers that the wildlife people in 
Tennessee and Kentucky, whose job it is to encourage boat safety, think 
are unreasonable.
  I am doing what the Corps has said needs to be done, which is to 
provide legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with the 
Corps of Engineers. My hope is that we can work out a reasonable 
solution with the wildlife agencies.
  The county judges on both sides of the border are very involved in 
this. They see the economic benefit that comes from the large number of 
people who visit those areas for recreational purposes. They leave 
their dollars behind. This creates good jobs in Tennessee and Kentucky.
  Basically, these are public waters. Tennessee and Kentucky fishermen 
ought to have access to them, and there shouldn't be an edict from 
Washington that puts the gate down the railroad crossing 100 percent of 
the time. I am going to do my best to see that doesn't stand. I hope we 
can work it out, but if we cannot, I am glad to introduce this 
legislation with Senator McConnell, Senator Corker, and Senator Paul. 
The same legislation is in the House of Representatives with 
Congressman Whitfield. I look forward to my meeting Monday with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record as follows:

                                 S. 421

       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 ``Freedom to Fish Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTED AREAS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall not take any action to establish a 
     restricted area prohibiting public access to waters 
     downstream of a dam owned by the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Exclusion.--For purposes of this Act, installing and 
     maintaining sirens, strobe lights, and signage for alerting 
     the public of hazardous water conditions shall not be 
     considered to be an action to establish a restricted area 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this section 
     shall apply to an action described in subsection (a) on or 
     after August 1, 2012.
       (2) Existing restrictions.--If the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, has taken an action 
     described in subsection (a) during the period beginning on 
     August 1, 2012, and ending on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) cease implementing the restricted area resulting from 
     the action; and
       (B) remove any barriers constructed in connection with the 
     restricted area.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 431. A bill to authorize preferential treatment for certain 
imports from Nepal, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal 
Trade Preferences Act.
  This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free 
status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.
  As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I 
believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting 
political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.
  Nepal has a per capita income of $540.
  Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in 
poverty.
  The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and 
most Nepalese live on $3 a day.
  Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist 
insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.
  Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels 
signed a peace accord.
  Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly 
was elected to draft a new constitution.
  Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a 
new constitution.
  Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.
  In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on 
garment imports were removed.
  This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. 
importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers 
with cheaper labor markets.
  The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry 
dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 
and 10,000.
  Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 
million in 2011.
  The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.
  The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 
21 percent.
  Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, 
Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 
percent and can be as high as 32 percent.
  In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot 
afford it. This makes no sense.
  I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in 
contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow 
Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.
  It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of 
Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has 
risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

[[Page 2100]]

  The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we 
provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other 
developed countries. No more, no less.
  Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical 
components of our efforts to help Nepal.
  But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open 
the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.
  In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when 
Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global 
marketplace.
  Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on 
foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export 
industries.
  With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference 
now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote 
economic growth and higher living standards.
  The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, 
Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment 
imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.
  Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.
  But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood 
the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of 
garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise 
every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.
  By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment 
industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic 
growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of 
living for the Nepalese people.
  Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur 
Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, 
and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is 
essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this 
legislation.
  Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and 
reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate 
our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this 
commonsense measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 432. A bill to extend certain trade preferences to certain least-
developed countries in Asia and the South Pacific, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia-
South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic 
growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's 
poorest countries.
  This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for 
garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary 
countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.
  The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed 
Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State 
Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference 
program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, 
Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and 
Vanuatu.
  These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of 
their citizens living on less than $1 a day.
  Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of 
the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.
  In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of 
U.S. tariffs.
  Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. 
tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.
  Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as 
the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.
  So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. 
tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent 
with our values?
  Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that 
has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the 
beneficiary countries in this bill.
  Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries 
of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. 
These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope 
for millions of people struggling with poverty.
  But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of 
economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.
  This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. 
Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and ensuring that we help all 
of those in need.
  In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support 
for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as 
an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and 
put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.
  Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and 
development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.
  Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn 
countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.
  Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of 
living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital 
export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.
  It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the 
Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that 
hold out the best hope for export growth.
  We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. 
market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries 
in the past.
  By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: 
reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their 
own two feet.
  We will also help ourselves.
  First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new 
opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.
  This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own 
country.
  But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South 
Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European 
Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference 
programs for these countries.
  We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.
  Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable 
politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by 
preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for 
terror.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the 
imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific 
countries is far less than any military intervention.
  We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against 
global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS 
pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a 
global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume 
a larger role and contribute more effectively.
  When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance 
helps.
  Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on 
imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help 
lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more 
options.
  It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on 
apparel imports.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade 
Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific 
countries.

[[Page 2101]]

  Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about 
this bill.
  First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the 
past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the 
absence of rule of law.
  Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference 
program?
  Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the 
trade benefits provided by this legislation.
  This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are 
granted on a performance-driven basis.
  That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that 
it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, 
political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based 
economy that protects private property rights.
  So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and 
the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating 
employment opportunities.
  The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right 
path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.
  If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our 
efforts will fail.
  Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference 
program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on 
domestic manufacturers.
  If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be 
minimal.
  Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account 
for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 
percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.
  These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, 
but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their 
export economies.
  By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change 
lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American 
consumer. We should seize this opportunity.
  I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this 
important initiative.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

                          ____________________