[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 74 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3430-S3451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1085. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to define next generation
biofuel, and to allow States the option of not participating in the
corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard due to conflicts
with agricultural, economic, energy, and environmental goals; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill, S. 1085. I have
some cosponsors, including Senator Snowe from Maine. The bill addresses
something that has become very controversial. It is certainly not
partisan in any way. It is more geographical; that is, I have been one
who has been opposed to the corn ethanol mandates ever since they first
came out. I opposed the 2007 Energy bill because it doubled the corn-
based ethanol mandates, despite the mounting questions surrounding
ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its environmental
sustainment, as well as transportational infrastructure needs. I can
remember back when they first did it, all the environmentalists were
saying corn ethanol will be the answer. They were all for it, but they
are against it now. They all recognize that corn ethanol is bad for the
environment.
Now, the three areas I personally have a problem with are, No. 1, the
environment; No. 2, you have a compatibility situation. You talk to any
of the farmers, any of the marine people, they will tell you it is very
destructive to the small engines. Thirdly, everyone is concerned with
the high price of fuel, with the fact that corn ethanol is not good for
your mileage. Kris Kiser of the Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers
testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on
ethanol's compatibility or lack of compatibility with more than 200
million legacy engines across America which are not designed to run on
certain blends of ethanol. I will quote her testimony before our
committee. She said:
In the marine industry, if your machine fails or your
engine fails and you are 30 miles offshore, this is a serious
problem. If you are in a snow machine and it fails in the
wilderness this is a serious problem.
Consumers complain about the decreasing fuel efficiency around corn
ethanol, containing 67 percent of the Btu of gasoline. We call it clear
gas. This is a good time to say we are not talking about biomass. We
are only talking about corn ethanol. Another problem I have in my State
of Oklahoma is we are a big cattle State and that has driven up the
cost of feedstock to a level that is not acceptable. According to the
EPA, vehicles operating on E85 ethanol experience a 20-percent to 30-
percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content.
Consumer reports found that E85 resulted in a 27-percent drop in fuel.
As a result, you drive around Oklahoma--first of all, we are in
Washington. It is my understanding there is no choice in Washington or
Virginia or in Maryland and those areas. In my State of Oklahoma, we
still have a choice, and the choice is very clear. The problem is the
way this is set up, we will run into a barrier where they will no
longer have clear gas available under the current formulas. For that
reason, we have people who--at almost every station you see, the
majority of the stations you see in Oklahoma, you have signs such as
this: Ethanol free. 100 percent gasoline. This is all over the State of
Oklahoma.
[[Page S3431]]
There is a solution to this problem, and it is one I have introduced
in this bill. Before describing that, I think the most pressing issue
of this so-called blend wall is that EISA mandated 15 billion gallons
of corn-based ethanol by 2015, but today it is readily apparent that
the country cannot physically absorb this much corn ethanol. It is too
much, too fast. In Oklahoma, ethanol's blend wall has nearly eliminated
consumer choice. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have little
option but to sell ethanol-blended gasoline, despite strong consumer
demand for clear gas. There is the consumer demand all over the State
of Oklahoma.
What is the solution? I introduced a very simple, five-page bill. The
bill would allow individual States to opt out of the mandate. It would
require their State legislature wants this and they pass a resolution,
it is signed by the governor, and they would be able to opt out. The
State would pass a bill. It is signed by the Governor, stating its
election to exercise this option. The Administrator of the EPA would
then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the
percentage amount of the gasoline consumed by this State.
This option nonparticipation would only apply to the corn portion of
the RFS and would not affect any of the volumetric requirements of
advanced biofuels. We are big in advanced biofuels in my State of
Oklahoma, the various foundations, Oklahoma State University. We have
switchgrass we are working on, and it is something we are all for. The
bill actually redefines cellulosic biofuels as next generation biofuel.
The previously defined cellulosic biofuel carveout is expanded to
include algae and any nonethanol renewable fuel derived from renewable
biomass. So this is something that is not going to be incompatible. It
is going to be very compatible with our interest here. So for those
people who say: We demand to have corn-based ethanol, you can have it.
All this is is choice, and if we and the people of my State of Oklahoma
want a choice of clear gas or corn ethanol, they should be able to do
it. I honestly don't think there is a legitimate argument against that.
I plan to try to get some cosponsors. I think my good friend from
Florida might be interested in cosponsoring something such as this
because this gives choice to the people of his State as well as my
State.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
S. 1086. A bill to reauthorize the Special Olympics Sport and
Empowerment Act of 2004, to provide assistance to Best Buddies to
support the expansion and development of mentoring programs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to
introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that
Senator Blunt has joined me in introducing this legislation; he and I
are both long-time supporters of the Special Olympics and Best Buddies
programs authorized in this legislation. Equally importantly, we are
continuing the bipartisan support that this legislation has
historically enjoyed.
The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model
and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of
individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years,
Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and
confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition
for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their
programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of
individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal
opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health
care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a
nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with
intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in
society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to
include them.
I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for
all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my state
of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of
athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in
addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into
an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience.
Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social
isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer
support and friendships with their peers without disabilities. The aim
is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with
and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best
Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment
for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Research shows that participation in activities involving both people
with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results
in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in
schools.
This bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted
her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual
disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the
development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which
celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including
those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for
participation and inclusion.
In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and
Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies
program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award
competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive
participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports
and recreation programs.
I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will
continue our support for these important programs that promote the
extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual
disabilities as well as broader community inclusion.
I urge all my colleagues to join with me and Senator Blunt in
supporting this very worthy bill.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr.
Cardin):
S. 1088. A bill to provide increased funding for the reinsurance for
early program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Retiree Health
Coverage Protection Act to provide an additional $5 billion for the
Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, EERP, to allow more employers to
participate in the program. It will also further reduce the cost of
retiree coverage.
I worked with Sen. Stabenow to include the EERP program in the
Affordable Care Act due to the erosion of employer-sponsored retiree
coverage across the country. The percentage of large firms providing
workers with retiree health coverage dropped from 66 percent in 1988 to
29 percent in 2009.
The ERRP helps to control health care costs and preserve coverage for
early retirees and their families and has been remarkably successful in
making retiree health insurance coverage more stable and affordable.
Employers who participate in the program can receive a reinsurance
reimbursement of up to 80 percent of catastrophic medical claims
between $15,000 and $90,000 for their early retiree enrollees. The
reimbursement is used to reduce the employer's health care costs and to
lower premiums to retirees and their families. A study from Hewitt
Associates estimates that the program will reduce the cost of retiree
coverage from 25 to 35 percent, anywhere from $2,000 to $3,000 per
retiree, per year.
The program has garnered robust participation among a wide range of
retiree health plan sponsors from all major sectors of our economy.
Earlier this month, it was announced that 5,515 plan sponsors have been
approved to participate in the program and nearly $2.5 billion
reinsurance reimbursements have been paid to 1,728 participating
retiree plans.
The ERRP has been so successful that the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, CMS, announced it could no longer accept
applications for the program after May 6 because the overwhelming
response would exhaust the $5 billion in appropriated program
[[Page S3432]]
funding. Until additional insurance market reforms are enacted in 2014,
we should build on the demonstrated success of ERRP.
Senator Stabenow, Senator Blumenthal, and I are working together to
preserve insurance coverage for millions of retirees who rely on on
health coverage through their former employers before they become
eligible for Medicare. That is why we are introducing legislation, the
Retiree Health Coverage Protection Act, to provide an additional $5
billion in ERRP funding. This additional funding could be used to allow
more employers to participate in the program and to further reduce the
cost of retiree coverage.
Over 180 employers who offer retiree health benefits in Massachusetts
have taken advantage of this program. These public and private sector
employers in the Commonwealth represent various entities, including:
city governments, hospitals, colleges, and financial service
institutions.
I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been
integral to the development of the Retiree Health Coverage Protection
Act and who have endorsed our legislation today, including the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO,
the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, Families USA, the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, and the National Education
Association, NEA.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to protect
and stabilize retiree health coverage by ensuring the ERRP has adequate
funding. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 1089. A bill to provide for the introduction of pay-for-
performance compensation mechanisms into contracts of the Department of
Veterans Affairs with community-based outpatient clinics for the
provision of health care services, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans
Health Care Improvement Act of 2011.
As we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs strives to provide
the best possible health care for our nation's heroes. However, it has
come to my attention that the quality of care provided to our nation's
veterans remains inconsistent among community-based outpatient clinics.
Some of these clinics are operated by private health care providers
under VA contracts. These VA-contracted health care providers are
compensated for their work at community-based outpatient clinics on a
capitated basis, which means they are essentially paid based on how
many new veterans they see during a pay period. These firms are
therefore rewarded for the number of veterans they sign up, not for the
quality of treatment provided to our veterans. While I am not opposed
to capitation per se, I am concerned current VA policy provides
contractors with the wrong incentives. Contracted health care providers
should have incentives to provide the best possible care for veterans,
not simply get as many veterans as possible through their doors.
As a result of the capitated system, it has been reported that too
many of our nation's heroes have faced difficulties at these clinics in
scheduling appointments, have suffered from neglect or have received
substandard health care. This occurred under the last administration
and I am concerned it may be continuing in the current one.
As such, I am reintroducing the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act,
which attempts to fix the way VA-contracted health care providers are
compensated at clinics. This bill would require the VA to begin to
introduce a pay-for-performance compensation plan for contractors,
thereby gradually incentivizing a higher quality of care for veterans
seen at privately-administered community-based outpatient clinics.
This bill gives the VA the flexibility to begin to implement such a
system through a pilot program and leaves the VA the discretion as to
how to adopt and best implement the pay-for-performance standards. In
this respect, the bill defers to the VA on how best to execute these
changes. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure.
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. 1089
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 ``Veterans Health Care
Improvement Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Veterans of the Armed Forces have made tremendous
sacrifices in the defense of freedom and liberty.
(2) Congress recognizes these great sacrifices and
reaffirms America's strong commitment to its veterans.
(3) As part of the on-going congressional effort to
recognize the sacrifices made by America's veterans, Congress
has dramatically increased funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs for veterans health care in the years since
September 11, 2001.
(4) Part of the funding for the Department of Veterans
Affairs for veterans health care is allocated toward
community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
(5) Many CBOCs are administered by private contractors.
(6) CBOCs administered by private contractors operate on a
capitated basis.
(7) Some current contracts for CBOCs may create an
incentive for contractors to sign up as many veterans as
possible, without ensuring timely access to high quality
health care for such veterans.
(8) The top priorities for CBOCs should be to provide
quality health care and patient satisfaction for America's
veterans.
(9) The Department of Veterans Affairs currently tracks the
quality of patient care through its Computerized Patient
Record System. However, fees paid to contractors are not
currently adjusted automatically to reflect the quality of
care provided to patients.
(10) A pay-for-performance payment model offers a promising
approach to health care delivery by aligning the payment of
fees to contractors with the achievement of better health
outcomes for patients.
(11) The Department of Veterans Affairs should begin to
emphasize pay-for-performance in its contracts with CBOCs.
SEC. 3. PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY-BASED
OUTPATIENT HEALTH CARE CLINICS.
(a) Plan Required.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall submit to Congress a plan to introduce pay-for-
performance measures into contracts which compensate
contractors of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
provision of health care services through community-based
outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
(b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) Measures to ensure that contracts of the Department for
the provision of health care services through CBOCs begin to
utilize pay-for-performance compensation mechanisms for
compensating contractors for the provision of such services
through such clinics, including mechanisms as follows:
(A) To provide incentives for clinics that provide high-
quality health care.
(B) To provide incentives to better assure patient
satisfaction.
(C) To impose penalties (including termination of contract)
for clinics that provide substandard care.
(2) Mechanisms to collect and evaluate data on the outcomes
of the services generally provided by CBOCs in order to
provide for an assessment of the quality of health care
provided by such clinics.
(3) Mechanisms to eliminate abuses in the provision of
health care services by CBOCs under contracts that continue
to utilize capitated-basis compensation mechanisms for
compensating contractors.
(4) Mechanisms to ensure that veterans are not denied care
or face undue delays in receiving care.
(c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall commence the
implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) unless
Congress enacts an Act, not later than 60 days after the date
of the submittal of the plan, prohibiting or modifying
implementation of the plan. In implementing the plan, the
Secretary may initially carry out one or more pilot programs
to assess the feasability and advisability of mechanisms
under the plan.
(d) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the
recommendations of the Secretary as to the feasability and
advisability of utilizing pay-for-performance compensation
mechanisms in the provision of health care services by the
Department by means in addition to CBOCs.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
S. 1093. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that solar energy property need not be located on the property with
respect to
[[Page S3433]]
which it is generating electricity in order to qualify for the
residential energy efficient property credit; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill
that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of my constituents, a bill
that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create jobs:
the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods Act, or SUN Act.
Over the last three years, I have been travelling across Colorado as
part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their
innovative policy ideas to create jobs. The SUN Act comes directly from
visiting with Coloradans.
This bill will help bring commonsense to our tax code, get government
out of the way of developing solar energy, and spur job growth in every
community across the United States.
I installed solar panels on my own home several years ago to take
advantage of the strong Colorado sun. However, I understand this option
is not available for all American families who want to receive their
home's energy needs from solar power. There can be difficulties
attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more
neighborhoods and towns are creating so called ``community solar''
projects.
Instead of affixing solar panels to every roof on the block, an
increasing number of Americans have decided to place those same solar
panels all together in one open and unobstructed sunny area near their
homes. By grouping solar panels together, it reduces the cost by up to
30 percent compared to installing each panel on every roof separately.
Whether used by neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or
developed by our rural energy cooperatives, creating these group solar
projects to share energy is a great way to lower the cost of developing
solar energy.
But there is a problem: our tax code is getting in the way. It
discourages neighborhood solar projects by requiring that solar panels
must actually be on your property instead of allowing neighbors and
others to partner on community solar projects. This discourages
innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternate energy
source.
The SUN Act would make a small change to the tax code that would no
longer constrain this innovative solar energy development. By
eliminating the requirement that solar panels be on one individual's
property, it allows Americans to work together on community projects
where each individual can claim a tax credit. This simple solution
makes it easier to adopt and use clean, renewable energy.
What excites me about this bill is that it will create jobs for
Americans in every neighborhood where these community solar projects
are developed. This bill reduces barriers that currently prevent
Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets, and creates
a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their
home.
Mr. Presdient, 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. 1093
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 ``Solar Uniting Neighborhoods
(SUN) Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO LOCATION OF SOLAR
ELECTRIC PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25D(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualified solar electric property expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified solar electric
property expenditure' means an expenditure for property which
uses solar energy to generate electricity--
``(i) for use in a dwelling unit located in the United
States and used as a residence by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) which enters the electrical grid at any point which
is not more than 50 miles from the point at which such a
dwelling unit used as a residence by the taxpayer is
connected to such grid, but only if such property is not used
in a trade or business of the taxpayer or in an activity with
respect to which a deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under
section 162 or paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.
``(B) Recapture.--The Secretary may provide for the
recapture of the credit under this subsection with respect to
any property described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A)
which ceases to satisfy the requirements of such clause.''.
(b) Limitation With Respect to Off-site Solar Property.--
Subsection (b) of section 25D of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Maximum credit for off-site solar property.--In the
case of any qualified solar electric property expenditure
which is such an expenditure by reason of clause (ii) of
subsection (d)(2)(A), the credit allowed under subsection (a)
(determined without regard to subsection (c)) for any taxable
year with respect to all such expenditures shall not exceed
$50,000.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO LOCATION OF SOLAR WATER
HEATING PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 25D(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The term'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Off-site property.--
``(i) In general.--Such term shall include an expenditure
for property described in subparagraph (A) notwithstanding--
``(I) whether such property is located on the same site as
the dwelling unit for which the energy generated from such
property is used, and
``(II) whether the energy generated by such property
displaces the energy used to heat the water load or space
heating load for the dwelling, so long as any such
displacement from such property occurs not more than 50 miles
from such dwelling unit,
but only if such property is not used in a trade or business
of the taxpayer or in an activity with respect to which a
deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under section 162 or
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.
``(ii) Recapture.--The Secretary may provide for the
recapture of the credit under this subsection with respect to
any property described in clause (i) which ceases to satisfy
the requirements of such clause.''.
(b) Limitation With Respect to Off-site Solar Property.--
Paragraph (3) of section 25D(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as added by section 2, is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Maximum credit for off-site solar property.--In the
case of--
``(A) any qualified solar electric property expenditure
which is such an expenditure by reason of clause (ii) of
subsection (d)(2)(A), and
``(B) any qualified solar water heating property
expenditure which is such an expenditure by reason of
subparagraph (B) of subsection (d)(1),
the credit allowed under subsection (a) (determined without
regard to subsection (c)) for any taxable year with respect
to all such expenditures shall not exceed $50,000.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXCLUSION OF INCOME FROM QUALIFYING SALES.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by inserting before section 140 the following new
section:
``SEC. 139F. INCOME FROM QUALIFYING SALES OF SOLAR
ELECTRICITY.
``For any taxable year, gross income of any person shall
not include any gain from the sale or exchange to the
electrical grid during such taxable year of electricity which
is generated by property with respect to which any qualified
solar electric property expenditures are eligible to be taken
into account under section 25D, but only to the extent such
gain does not exceed the value of the electricity used at
such residence during such taxable year.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by redesignating the section added to such Code by
section 10108(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act as section 139E, and by locating such section
immediately after section 139D of such Code (as added by
section 9021(a) of such Act) and immediately before section
139F of such Code (as added by this section).
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
striking all that follows after the item relating to section
139C and inserting the following items:
``Sec. 139D. Indian health care benefits.
``Sec. 139E. Free choice vouchers.
``Sec. 139F. Income from qualifying sales of solar electricity.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kohl, and Mr.
Sanders):
S. 1095. A bill to include geriatrics and gerontology in the
definition of ``primary health services'' under the
[[Page S3434]]
National Health Service Corps program; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this
May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older
Americans to live longer and healthier lives.
Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37
million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now
if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet
the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will
face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans.
Health care providers with the necessary training to give older
Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark
report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine
concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe
workforce shortages in the care of older adults.
According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S.
physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In
addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of
advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment
and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to
low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate
training.
Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is
an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right
now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the
necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best
possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American
families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life
for their older relatives and friends.
It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these
issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and
Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This
legislation would help attract and retain trained health care
professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality
care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them
with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the
National Health Service Corps.
Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or
gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance
practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation
would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas
with a shortage of these important health professionals.
Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills
to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's
future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward
creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently
needs.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet
our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Cardin, and Mr. Wicker):
S. 1096. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve access to, and utilization of, bone mass measurement benefits
under the Medicare part B program by extending the minimum payment
amount for bone mass measurement under such program through 2013; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Stabenow
of Michigan to introduce The Preservation of Access to Osteoporosis
Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2011. The companion bill in
the U.S. House of Representatives is being introduced by Representative
Michael Burgess with Representative Shelley Berkley.
Since 1997, Congress has recognized the necessity of osteoporosis
prevention by standardizing coverage for bone mass measurement under
the Medicare program. At that time, I actively pursued inclusion of the
language in the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization bill as
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Later, with the passage of
health care reform legislation, Congress enacted a temporary solution
to the problem caused by Medicare cuts in reimbursement rates for
osteoporosis screening tests through bone mass measurements. The
osteoporosis screening provision in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act returned the Medicare reimbursement level to 70
percent of the 2006 Medicare reimbursement rate.
Regrettably, this provision will expire at the end of the calendar
year. For Medicare beneficiaries, this sunset means that access to
osteoporosis diagnosis, prevention, and treatment will once again be in
jeopardy as Medicare reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening
will plummet by about 50 percent on January 1, 2012. Moreover, without
adequate Medicare reimbursement rates, we most certainly risk losing
the battle for improving access to bone density testing as well as
preventing debilitating and costly bone fractures--an outcome we can
ill afford.
A disease of reduced bone mass that ultimately results in bones
becoming brittle and fracturing more easily, osteoporosis constitutes a
major public health threat, affecting 44 million Americans who either
have the disease or are at risk for developing it due to low bone
density. Osteoporosis is especially prevalent among women, who
represent an incredible 71 percent of all cases. In fact, in their
lifetime, one in two women and as many as one in four men over the age
of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's
risk of an osteoporotic fracture is greater than her annual combined
incidence of breast cancer, heart attack, and stroke, making access and
affordability absolutely imperative.
I want to stress to my colleagues that while there is no cure for
osteoporosis, it is largely preventable and thousands of fractures
could be avoided through early detection and treatment of low bone
mass. New drug therapies have been proven to reduce fractures and to
rebuild bone mass. At the same time, a bone mass measurement is
necessary prior to initiating any form of osteoporosis therapy or
prophylaxis.
Bone mass measurements can be used to determine the status of a
person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These
tests are safe, painless, accurate, and quick. DXA, dual energy x-ray
absorptiometry, is recognized by the World Health Organization, the
U.S. Surgeon General, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services as the ``gold standard'' for diagnosing osteoporosis.
A technique called vertebral fracture assessment or VFA can identify
spinal fractures and show abnormally shaped vertebra. Bone density
screenings have been shown to result in 37 percent reduction in hip
fracture rates according to a 2008 study by Kaiser in Southern
California. Reimbursement under the Medicare program for DXA screening
is scheduled to be reduced by 62 percent by 2013 and VFA will be
reduced by 30 percent by 2013. The reduction in Medicare reimbursement
will almost certainly discourage physicians from continuing to provide
convenient access to DXA screening or VFA in their offices.
Since \2/3\ of all DXA scans are performed in non-facility settings,
such as physician offices, patient access to bone mass measurement will
continue to be severely compromised if DXA scans are not readily
available to all patients. Our bill would renew the current Medicare
levels for reimbursement relief to preserve access to DXA screenings,
improve patient care, and prevent unnecessary costs to the Medicare
program through reduced expenditures on fractures.
Osteoporosis, which is responsible for more than two million
fractures annually, is a silent disease that often goes undetected
until a fall or an injury results in a broken bone. Our senior
population is at greatest risk, with 89 percent of fracture costs
attributed to individuals who are 65 years of age or older. Perhaps the
most tragic consequences occur with elderly individuals who fall and
suffer osteoporotic hip fractures.
Of those senior citizens suffering hip fractures, 12-13 percent will
die within 6 months following the injury and 20 percent will require
nursing home care . . . often for the rest of their lives. Moreover,
the Medicaid budget bears the cost of nursing home admissions
[[Page S3435]]
for hip fractures for low-income Americans. In general, osteoporotic
fractures result in an estimated annual cost of $19 billion to our
health care system.
I remain hopeful that one day researchers will discover a cure for
this silent and debilitating disease. In the meantime, early detection
continues to be our best weapon against osteoporosis, because it is
through early detection that we can best thwart the progress of
osteoporosis by initiating preventive measures to combat bone loss.
Continuing our current Medicare reimbursement rate for osteoporosis
screening tests satisfies the triple aim of better care, improved
health, and lower costs. I hope that our colleagues will join Senator
Stabenow and me in supporting this bill.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Portman, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Johnson
of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Burr, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Coats, Ms. Ayotte, and
Mr. Blunt)
S. 1100. A bill to amend title 41, United States Code, to prohibit
inserting politics into the Federal acquisition process by prohibiting
the submission of political contribution information as a condition of
receiving a Federal contract; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping
Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011. This bill would
prohibit Federal agencies from collecting or using information about
political contributions made by businesses or individuals that seek to
do business with the Federal Government. My bill would keep politics
out of Federal contracting.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Rules Committee Ranking Member
Lamar Alexander, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight Ranking Member
Rob Portman, as well as our colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ron
Johnson, Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, John
Cornyn, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, John Thune, John
Barrasso, Roger Wicker, Mike Johanns, Dan Coats, Roy Blunt, and Kelly
Ayotte.
We learned in April that the Obama administration was seriously
considering requiring Federal agencies to collect information about
campaign contributions by companies, some of their employees, and even
their directors as a condition of competing for Federal contracts. This
is simply shocking. It amounts to intentionally injecting political
considerations into the Federal contracting process. What possible good
can come from linking political information to a process which must be
grounded solely and unequivocally on providing the very best value to
American taxpayers?
The trust of the American people in the integrity of our Federal
contract award process depends on ensuring that the government's ``best
value'' determination is free from political bias. It is unfathomable
that this administration would even consider a move that would inject
politics into the process, or create a perception that politics is
something to be considered in selecting the winners and losers among
businesses vying for Federal contracts.
In addition to threatening the integrity of the procurement process,
the draft Executive Order would also chill the First Amendment rights
of individuals to contribute to the political causes or candidates they
choose.
Were the President to issue such an order, undoubtedly we would see a
chilling effect on political activity. Many contractors would fear that
the success or viability of their business could be threatened if they
support the causes or candidates opposed by the administration.
If the collection of such data were required, American businesses
would be forced to think twice before contributing to political
candidates or causes.
In true Orwellian fashion, the draft executive order suggests that
the only way to keep politics out of the contracting process is to
include political information with every contract offer. If the White
House gets its way, Federal agencies would have to collect information
about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of
potential contractors before any contract could be awarded.
This EO would be far reaching and would apply not only to
contributions made by the contracting company but also to those made by
its directors, officers, and affiliates.
These requirements would also apply retroactively to contributions
made two years before the submission of an offer. Just think about--
political donations made years before a contract is even contemplated
would have to be shared with government officials.
By contrast, my bill reaffirms the fundamental principle that federal
contracts should be awarded free from political considerations and be
based on the best value to the taxpayers. Specifically, the bill would
prohibit a Federal agency from collecting the political information of
contractors and their employees as part of any type of request for
proposal in anticipation of any type of contract.
It would prohibit the agency from using political information
received from any source as a factor in the source selection decision
process for new contracts, or in making decisions related to
modifications or extensions of existing contracts; and prohibit
databases designed to be used by contracting officers to determine the
responsibility of bidders from including political information, except
for information on contractors' violations already permitted by law.
Whether or not a prospective contractor agrees with the political
views of this or any other administration should be completely
irrelevant.
Businesses that have supported conservative causes or whose directors
have contributed to Republican candidates should not have to fear that
bidding for Federal work would be a waste of their effort.
Similarly, in the next Republican administration, contributors to
Democratic causes and candidates should not be intimidated from
competing for contracts. The result of such considerations would be
less competition for Federal contracts and thus higher prices for goods
and services procured by the Federal Government.
The President and the Federal contracting system must not discourage
businesses from competing for government contracts. At a time when the
budget is under severe constraints, the administration should be
seeking to expand the pool of bidders, not shrink it.
In April, 27 Senators wrote to the President to express our
opposition to this ill-conceived proposal. We pointed out that
``political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective
contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if
the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration. No White
House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the
causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government
contract. And no American should have to worry about whether his or her
political activities or support will affect the ability to get or keep
a federal contract * * *''
I also joined three other colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the
President in May stressing the Executive Order's impact on the Federal
contracting process and the already stretched-thin Federal acquisition
workforce.
I have not received a response to either letter.
It simply doesn't pass the straight face test for this administration
to suggest that this dramatic change in federal contracting is needed
to remove politics from the contracting process. In fact, even the
administration's chief procurement official recently admitted at a
House hearing that there was no evidence of any problem of political
corruption in the contracting process that would warrant correction
with this type of new Executive Order.
The reality is just the opposite: requiring disclosure of one's
political activities and leanings as part of that process would likely
ensure that politics would play a role in the award of federal
contracts.
If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements
also apply to organizations receiving Federal grants?
In fact, campaign contributions to candidates and political
committees already are required to be reported to the
[[Page S3436]]
Federal Election Commission, and with a click of a mouse, can be viewed
on FEC.gov.
Americans should get the best value in the marketplace and not a
partisan policy that stifles First Amendment rights, politicizes the
contracting process, and reduces competition in Federal contracting. I
am pleased to note that my colleagues in the House of Representatives,
Representatives Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, and Sam Graves agree. Today
they have introduced an identical measure in that chamber. And last
night, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill
that would prohibit Federal agencies from requiring contractors to
reveal contributions to political campaigns.
Keep politics out of Federal contracting. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
______
By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1101. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to approve waives under the Medicaid Program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act that are related to State provider taxes that
exempt certain retirement communities; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that
certain Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Life Care
Communities are required to pay a provider tax despite the fact that
they provide no beds and no services that are certified under the
Medicaid program. Thus, these facilities are paying a tax and receiving
no benefit. The Department of Health and Human Services currently
provides a waiver for this fee, but the approval for the waiver is not
a foregone conclusion. This is costly to those communities who provide
for themselves and who do not depend on government programs at all. For
these reasons, Senator Mark Pryor and I are introducing this
legislation requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
approve waivers sought by states in relation to Continuing Care
Retirement Communities and Life Care Communities which have no beds
that are certified to provide medical assistance under title XIX of the
Social Security Act or that do not provide services for which payment
may be made under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
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. 1101
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 ``Provider Tax Administrative
Simplification Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PROVIDER TAX RULE EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN CONTINUING
CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES.
In the case of a State that has a provider tax that does
not apply to continuing care retirement communities or life
care communities (as such terms are used for purposes of
section 1917(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396p(g)) that have no beds that are certified to provide
medical assistance (as such term is defined under section
1905(a) of such Act) under title XIX of the Social Security
Act or that do not provide services for which payment may be
made under title XIX of the Social Security Act, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall approve a waiver
under section 433.68(e)(2)(iii) of title 42 of the Code of
Federal Regulations regardless of whether the Secretary
determines that the State satisfies the requirements of
section 433.68(e)(2)(iii)(B) of such title.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 1102. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, with respect
to certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the past year, students in Illinois
have told me their stories of leaving some for-profit colleges with
mountains of student loan debt and no job prospects. The students who
find themselves in this terrible situation often end up defaulting on
their loans. One quarter of students who took out Federal loans to
attend for-profit colleges defaulted within three years of starting
repayment. Compare that to 11 percent at public colleges and 8 percent
at private nonprofit colleges.
The situation for students who take out private student loans to
attend for-profit schools can be even worse. A study by the College
Board found that students at for-profit schools, unable to get enough
government aid to pay their tuition turn to private loans much more
than students at traditional schools.
Many large for-profit colleges have begun making loans directly to
their students. This private lending can be a boon for the schools. It
keeps students in school. It helps the college meet its ``90/10''
requirement, which keeps the student aid flowing.
Disturbingly, some of the for-profit colleges making these loans do
not expect to collect them easily. Corinthian Colleges Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Ken Ord stated in the February
2010 investor call that they anticipate a 56 percent to 58 percent
default rate on an estimated $150 million in internal student lending.
Just last month, Ken Ord stated that Corinthian Colleges will seek to
nearly double this loan volume.
For-profit colleges like Corinthian are making private loans to
students knowing that a majority of the students will struggle to make
payments. These companies make significant profits from federal
financial aid programs and are able to write off these loans.
This is a disaster for students. These are private student loans with
interest rates and fees that can be as onerous as credit cards. There
are reports of private loans with variable interest rates reaching 18
percent. Unlike Federal student loans, there are few consumer
protections available for private student loans. Some students who take
out private loans find themselves trapped under an enormous amount of
debt that they cannot escape. Because of a 2005 change to the
bankruptcy law, they are stuck with this debt for the rest of their
lives.
Today, along with Senator Franken and Senator Whitehouse, I am
introducing a bill that will restore fairness for these students and
others who find themselves buried in private student loan debt. Our
bill, the Fairness for Struggling Students Act, will allow borrowers of
private student loans to discharge those loans in bankruptcy, just as
other types of private debt can be discharged. Representatives Cohen
and Davis are introducing a similar bill in the House.
Before 2005, private student loans issued by for-profit lenders were
appropriately treated like credit card debt and other similar types of
unsecured consumer debt in bankruptcy. In 2005, a provision was added
to law to protect the investments of private lenders that extend
private credit to students. The industry has boomed over the past
decade. Private student loan volume last year was $8.5 billion.
Today, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will give students who
find themselves in dire financial straits a chance at a new beginning.
My bill restores the bankruptcy law, as it pertains to private student
loans, to the statute in place before the law was amended in 2005.
Under this legislation, privately issued student loans will once again
be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy law was designed to give debtors in severe financial
distress a chance for meaningful relief. The current bankruptcy law
unjustly punishes men and women who have tried to improve their lives
by pursuing a higher education and all too often became victims of
predatory private student lenders or predatory for-profit colleges. It
is time to restore fairness for student borrowers. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
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. 1102
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 ``Fairness for Struggling
Students Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.
Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows
through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting
``dependents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan
made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or made
under any program
[[Page S3437]]
funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or an
obligation to repay funds received from a governmental unit
as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend;''.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Chambliss):
S. 1103. A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this month, the President requested
that Congress provide a limited exception to the statutory limit on the
service of the FBI Director in order to allow Robert Mueller to
continue his service for up to two additional years, until September
2013. I spoke with the President about his request, and understand his
desire for continuity and stability in our national security leadership
team at a time of great challenge and heightened threat concerns.
On May 12, the President explained in a statement: ``Given the
ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership
transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central
Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is
critical at this time.'' It is for that reason, along with his
confidence in Director Mueller, that the President has made this
request of us. The President has asked us ``to join together in
extending that leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and
security.''
Since the attack on September 11, 2001, I have spoken often of the
need for us all to join together. When I spoke to the Senate about the
successful operation against Osama bin Laden, I urged all Americans to
support our President in his continuing efforts to protect our Nation
and keep Americans safe. I reiterated my hope that Americans would
stand shoulder-to-shoulder, as we did in the weeks and months
immediately following the September 11 attacks, unified in our resolve
to keep our Nation secure. And I urged Congress to join together for
the good of the country and all Americans. This is one of those times
that we must join together.
We face a time of heightened threats, particularly when experts are
so concerned about possible reprisal attacks by al Qaeda. Indeed, most
Americans share a concern that al Qaeda will try to strike back. So now
is not a time for obstruction or delay in considering the President's
request to maintain continuity and stability in his national security
team.
We have an opportunity now to set aside partisanship and come
together to work with our President to keep America safe. While the
threat from al Qaeda continues, and as the President makes necessary
shifts in his national security team, I appreciate why President Obama
has proposed that we continue the service of President Bush's appointee
to the important leadership position of Director of the FBI. I
appreciate Director Mueller's willingness to continue in service to the
Nation. This was not Bob Mueller's idea or request. This is the
President's request and, as a patriotic American, Director Mueller is
willing to give another two years in service to a grateful Nation.
The Bureau has seen significant transformation since September 11,
2001. Director Mueller has handled this evolution with professionalism
and focus. The FBI plays a critical role in our efforts to protect
national security. Attorney General Holder said recently: ``The United
States faces ongoing threats from terrorist intent on attacking us both
at home and abroad, and it is crucial that the FBI have sustained,
strong leadership to confront that threat.'' He is right.
I was encouraged to see the reports that Senator McConnell, the
Senate Republican leader, supports the President's request. I
appreciate the comments by Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary
Committee, supporting the President's decision, and stating his
agreement that ``it is important to maintain continuity for our
intelligence community during this transition period.''
I am pleased that Senator Grassley, our ranking Republican on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, has joined as a cosponsor of a bill to
extend the service of Director Mueller, who Senator Grassley said has
``proven his ability to run the FBI'' in these ``extraordinary times.''
I am also pleased that Senators Feinstein and Chambliss, the Chairman
and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are joining as
cosponsors of the bill. We recognize the extraordinary circumstances
confronting the President, and support his request for a short
extension of Director Mueller's service. But we also all agree that
this needs to be a one-time exception and this measure we join together
to introduce today is intended to be a one-time exception and not a
permanent extension.
I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001 when
President Bush nominated Bob Mueller. The President nominated him on
July 18; the Judiciary Committee received his paperwork on July 24; and
we held two days of hearings on July 30 and July 31. The Judiciary
Committee voted on his nomination on August 2 and the Senate confirmed
him that same day. It is already as long from the day that President
Obama made his request for the short extension of his term of service
as it took us in 2001 to hold hearings and for the Senate to confirm
Bob Mueller to a 10-year term as FBI Director. We must not delay action
any longer.
Bob Mueller served for three years in the United States Marine Corps;
led a rifle platoon in Vietnam; and earned a Bronze Star, two Navy
Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of
Gallantry. This is a man who served as the United States Attorney in
both Massachusetts and Northern California, as the Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, and the
acting Deputy Attorney General at the beginning of the George W. Bush
administration. This is a man who left a lucrative position in private
practice to return to law enforcement after he had served in higher
positions, by joining the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of
Columbia as a line prosecutor in the homicide section.
The President could have nominated the next director of the FBI,
someone who could serve for the next 10 years, until 2021. That is
someone who would serve through the presidential elections in 2012,
2016 and 2020, and into the period long after his own presidency.
Instead, he has chosen to ask Congress to extend the term of service of
a proven leader for a brief period, given the extenuating circumstances
facing our country.
I emphasize that this is not Bob Mueller's request, it is the
President's. Bob Mueller has served tirelessly and selflessly for 10
years, and is undoubtedly ready to begin the next phase of his life.
But Bob has characteristically answered duty's call and indicated his
willingness to continue his service. We should fulfill our duty, as
well, and join together without delay to secure the continuity and
stability that is demanded at this time, and that is needed to keep our
country safe. It is time for us to join together and act on the
President's request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. 1103
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE INCUMBENT DIRECTOR OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
Section 1101 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (28 U.S.C. 532 note) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(c) With respect to the individual who is the incumbent
in the office of the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on the date of enactment of this subsection--
``(1) subsection (b) shall be applied --
``(A) in the first sentence, by substituting `12 years' for
`ten years'; and
``(B) in the second sentence, by substituting `12-year
term' for `10-year' term; and
``(2) the third sentence of subsection (b) shall not
apply.''.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is
on the front line in defending our country from terrorists, spies, and
criminals. The FBI has a long history dating back over 100 years. The
FBI started as an agency formed during President Theodore Roosevelt's
administration when seven Secret Service agents were sent to the
Justice Department to create a new investigative bureau. Since that
start, the FBI has developed into a
[[Page S3438]]
cadre of talented agents who have pioneered new investigative tools
advancing law enforcement across the country.
For example, the Bureau agents developed advancements in forensic
science, such as fingerprint technology and DNA analysis, now utilized
to build investigations from the smallest of clues obtained at crime
scenes. Such advancements have allowed the FBI to combat organized
crime and international terrorists across the country and around the
globe.
Despite these successes, the FBI has also had its share of failures.
These include maintaining secret files on elected officials, the
investigation of civil rights leaders, the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and
Waco, missing internal spy Robert Hanssen, the corruption and misuse of
mob informants in the Boston field office, and the failure to connect
the dots leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The FBI has also had problems
in failing to manage high-profile projects, such as the procurement of
information technology upgrades. They have failed to address personnel
problems, such as the double standard for discipline that the Justice
Department inspector general found agents believe exists. And there
were the serious issues that required reform at the FBI crime lab.
These are black marks on the history of the FBI.
I have been an outspoken critic of the FBI's culture for many years
because of its unwillingness to own up to mistakes. Too often,
officials sought to protect the agency's reputation at the expense of
the truth. My concerns are magnified by the way the FBI treats internal
whistleblowers who come forward and report fraud and abuse. All too
often, instead of owning up to problems and fixing them, they circle
the wagons and shoot the messenger. The FBI is all too often the exact
opposite of an agency that can accept constructive criticism, from both
those inside and out.
That said, I must give credit to the FBI when it is due. Following
the tragedy of 9/11, the FBI has worked to fix the problems that have
occurred. There has been a top-to-bottom transformation at the FBI
moving it from a pure law enforcement agency to a national security
agency. Chief among those lending this transformation has been FBI
Director Robert Mueller. Sworn in as Director just 1 week prior to 9/
11, Director Mueller has led the charge to ensure that the FBI is
updated into a modern national security agency. This transformation
includes upgrading the workforce from an agent-driven model to one that
includes an ever-increasing number of intelligence analysts. Director
Mueller has taken the transformation head-on and has done an admirable
job. I applaud the hard work that has been done, but more work remains.
That is why we are here today introducing legislation that will extend
the term of FBI Director Mueller for 2 additional years. I join my
colleagues from the Judiciary and Select Intelligence Committees in
introducing a one-time statutory exemption that will extend the term of
FBI Director Mueller's term by 2 years. I do this recognizing the good
work of Director Mueller and against a backdrop of heightened alert to
terrorist attack following the death of Osama bin Laden. However, I do
this with a heavy heart because I believe the 10-year term is a good
thing for both the FBI and the country.
Currently, the law requires that the FBI Director be limited to one
single 10-year term. This limitation was put in place in 1976 following
a 1968 change in the law making the Director a Presidential
appointment. Congress included this term for two main reasons: one, to
ensure that the Director was insulated from political influence of the
President; two, to ensure that no one individual serves as FBI Director
for such a long period of time to amass too much power. The inclusion
of a term was part of a series of reforms to government agencies
following the Watergate scandal and following the death of former
Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had served a 48-year term.
The current term limit has been in place for 35 years. In that time,
no Director of the FBI has ever served an entire 10-year term and no
President has ever suggested the term limit should be extended.
However, on September 4, 2011, FBI Director Mueller would be the first
to reach the 10-year mark. President Obama has indicated it is his
desire to have Director Mueller stay on for an additional 2 years and
has asked us to extend the term.
While I join my colleagues in introducing this extension, I have also
asked that we have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to
address this extension. There are significant constitutional concerns
that must be addressed, such as whether Congress has the authority to
extend the term of a sitting appointee. A concern of this magnitude
needs to be discussed in a formal hearing. Additionally, this would be
the first time the Congress will be extending the term of the Director
in over 35 years and nearly 37 years since a hearing was held on the
term of the Director in the Judiciary Committee.
Director Mueller has done an admirable job of reforming an agency
under difficult circumstances. While I have my concerns with the
precedent that this will set for future Directors--namely, that the
term can be extended--I do think that making a one-time exception is
warranted in this limited case and with the current existing threats.
But I do not want this to become a regular occurrence. This legislation
is narrowly tailored to ensure that the intent of Congress is to create
only a one-time exception. Further, we will be holding a Judiciary
Committee hearing in the near future to address this important,
limited, one-time extension. Against that backdrop, I support this
extension and look forward to an open debate and discussion surrounding
this legislation.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 1106. A bill to authorize Department of Defense support for
programs on pro bono legal assistance for members of the Armed Forces;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Graham to
introduce the Justice for Troops Act. This legislation offers a simple
solution to a serious problem that affects the well-being of our troops
and their families. Today, when service men and women face civil legal
problems they often have no access to legal assistance. When these
troops face such problems, like child custody issues, complications
with leases, mortgage payments or credit card debt that should be
protected under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or disputes over a
bank account, they often have no access to legal assistance.
Without representation, troops run the risk of losing custody of
their children, being evicted from their home, or facing financial
ruin. This is unjust, especially when there are many lawyers willing to
volunteer their services for free. The Justice for Troops Act would
solve this problem by connecting service men and women with pro bono
lawyers. It would do so by authorizing the Department of Defense, DoD,
to use up to $500,000 of funds already appropriated for operation and
maintenance to support programs that make these connections and ensure
that our troops have access to the legal representation they need.
All branches of the military provide our service men and women with
basic legal services on-base through legal assistance officers, Judge
Advocate Generals, JAGs, but they generally cannot represent service
members in court or provide legal assistance in other parts of the
country. When troops encounter legal problems that JAGs are not able to
handle, they are left on their own to find a lawyer. This burden can
arise if a service member is stationed in one state, but his or her
home, family, or bank accounts are located in another. On-base JAG
officers are unable to help with bankruptcy, child support issues, and
other legal challenges that arise in a different state. As the number
of deployed troops has increased since 2001, the gap between their
legal needs and the offerings of JAG offices has widened. In some
cases, JAG officers have referred troops who cannot afford a lawyer to
programs that connect them with pro bono lawyers. Other cases have been
left unresolved, to the detriment of our troops, their families, and
the readiness of our armed forces.
Today, there are limited services available to help troops with legal
problems that cannot be handled by JAGs, but they are unable to fully
meet the growing need. Some law
[[Page S3439]]
school clinics, state bar associations, and the American Bar
Association's Military Pro Bono Project connect active-duty military
personnel and their families to free legal assistance beyond what
military legal offices can offer. They maintain lists of attorneys who
are willing to provide their services free of charge to service members
and, in conjunction with the DoD, reach out to on-base JAG offices to
encourage them to refer troops to their programs.
Unfortunately, these programs have a long way to go to meet the
increasing demand for their pro bono legal services, and too many
troops still go without legal help. Furthermore, existing programs are
limited in their ability to connect troops with pro bono lawyers
because funding to support them is scarce. With access to only
$500,000, pro bono projects would be able to build more connections,
ensure that every JAG office knows how to refer service members to the
programs, and grow their databases of pro bono lawyers. This small
investment would be leveraged into providing free legal assistance to
countless men and women who serve our country. We will no doubt enhance
our military readiness by eliminating the stress and anxiety caused by
legal problems.
The Justice for Troops Act is supported by the Department of Defense,
the Military Officers Association of America, the Southern Wisconsin
Chapter of the Military Officers Association of America, the National
Military Family Association, the National Guard Association of the
United States, the Wisconsin National Guard Association, the
Association of the US Army, the Air Force Association, and the Gold
Star Wives of America.
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. 1106
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 ``Justice for Troops Act''.
SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS ON PRO
BONO LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.
(a) Support Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
provide support to one or more public or private programs
designed to connect attorneys who provide pro bono legal
assistance with members of the Armed Forces who are in need
of such assistance.
(b) Financial Support.--
(1) In general.--The support provided a program under
subsection (a) may include financial support of the program.
(2) Limitation on amount.--The total amount of financial
support provided under subsection (a) in any fiscal year may
not exceed $500,000.
(3) Funding.--Amounts for financial support under this
section shall be derived from amounts authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 1110. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to permit agencies to
count certain contracts toward contracting goals; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business
Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from
Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me.
Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is
an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways
to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of
many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help
promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street.
This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that
prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts
toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a
cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule
was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the
growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming
agreements to compete for large government contracts.
This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue.
The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small
businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make
competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can
meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group
they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest
government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government
is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to
make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses
for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to
ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with
small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration
as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes
businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small
businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill,
an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming
agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory
obligations for small business set-asides.
As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business
Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to
access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify
and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9
years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where
contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the
Federal Government gets the goods and services they need.
This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small
businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and
other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Brown of
Ohio):
S. 1117. A bill to amend section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to improve the health coverage tax credit, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of
2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of
jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care
coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help
American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are
displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle-
class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010,
an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC
participants are very satisfied with the program.
However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far
too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this
important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of
thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have
participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off
workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still
has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy
provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some
workers.
I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how
unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very
frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been
able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for
people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have
very limited income.
The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer
advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as
the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The
bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many
to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand
eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes
included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent
to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA
eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report
[[Page S3440]]
last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased
after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the
Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could
afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly
premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of
monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions
expired on February 13, 2011.
As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on
this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA
Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's
temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of
affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95
percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired.
This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing
limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under
the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health
insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance
coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who
previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to
separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior
Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the
individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did
not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from
employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based
coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered
in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make
matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections
set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to
vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO
reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC
recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times
the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category.
The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by
clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage
within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual
market plans to be community-rated.
Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have
access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what
people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees
had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or
pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group
option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have
access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were
used to when they were employed.
Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month
continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute,
displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous
health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer
protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting
condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits.
Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three
months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration
has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health
insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which
usually is after separation from employment and after certification of
TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot
afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their
jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the
statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects
this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage
means three months prior to separation from employment.
Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain
eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree
becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of
Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy
because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This
technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage
through their spouses or parents.
Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and
makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance
coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low
participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process
and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during
the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This
legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows
displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the
HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for
certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury
Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the
health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for
advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be
eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an
important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current
training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage
when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an
individual's ability to participate in training.
As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment
Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In
West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of
trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these
individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and
care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a
significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit
is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage
during this very difficult transition.
Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of
thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to
participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The
GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the
Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade-
displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon
the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to
make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals
and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
pass this important legislation.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Begich, Ms.
Snowe, and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1119. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Marine Debris
Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Trash Free
Seas Act of 2011, a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Marine
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, MDRPRA. This act, of
which I am proud to have been the original sponsor, was first passed in
2006 to address the pervasive issue of marine debris which is found in
myriad forms throughout our oceans. It created programs in both the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S.
Coast Guard that research, track, and work to mitigate and remove
marine debris and its associated impacts. The Trash Free Seas Act would
update these programs to incorporate advances in our understanding of
the issue and allow for greater regional and international coordination
in our mitigation efforts.
Marine debris is a catch-all term that encompasses everything from
floating refuse to lost fishing nets and pieces of micro-plastic. In
all its forms, however, it is something that was once manufactured and
has since been lost at sea through accident, intent, or act of nature.
Once at sea, the impacts of marine debris may reach unintended shores
as it drifts on ocean currents
[[Page S3441]]
and harms our ecosystems and economies. This harm may come from direct
interactions such as physical damage to a coral reef or fishing vessel;
through indirect impacts such as the concentration of harmful chemicals
in floating plastics; or from a reduction in tourism due to the
unsightliness of a littered beach. In every case we should be
responding by working to reduce the overall problem on a global scale
and by striving to mitigate specific impacts.
As an island State, Hawaii is particularly susceptible to the impacts
of marine debris and, all the more so, because we are located near the
center of a great network of ocean currents in the Pacific that tend to
concentrate debris into a wide region known as the ``garbage patch''.
For this reason, our State has long been at the forefront in dealing
with this issue and in fact we have recently become the first State to
develop and implement a comprehensive marine debris action plan. This
Plan, along with the programs at NOAA and the Coast Guard, are likely
to be even more valuable to us in the coming years as recent research
suggests that the tragic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that
struck in March, resulted in a tremendous amount of lost infrastructure
that may reach our shores as debris in as little as 1 to 2 years.
The Trash Free Seas Act of 2011 would strengthen our ability to
respond to the pervasive problem of marine debris by incorporating
marine debris removal as an explicit purpose of the programs;
clarifying research and assessment and reduction, prevention, and
removal as two distinct components of the NOAA program; and including
tool development, regional coordination, and promoting international
action as explicit program functions.
I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Blunt, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 1120. A bill to encourage greater use of propane as a
transportation fuel, to create jobs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Propane
Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011. I am pleased to note that the
junior Senators from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and Michigan, Ms. Stabenow,
are original cosponsors of this measure. Our bill extends for five
years Federal Alternative Fuel Tax Credits for Propane Used as a Motor
Fuel, Propane Vehicles, and Propane Refueling Infrastructure.
Propane ``autogas'' is a reliable, domestically produced alternative
fuel with lower greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions than gasoline. Sixty
percent of propane, also known as liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, derived
from natural gas processing and 40 percent is a byproduct of crude oil
refining. Since LPG is derived from fossil fuels, burning it releases
carbon dioxide, CO2. The advantage is that LPG releases less
CO2 per unit of energy than oil and burns cleanly with
regard to particulates.
At present, one propane-powered light-duty vehicle, LDV, and several
heavy-duty vehicle, HDV, propane engines and fueling systems are
available from U.S. original equipment manufacturers, OEM. Because
other countries offer more OEM options in propane vehicles, thorough
testing to compare emissions with reformulated gasoline has been
conducted on these vehicles and engines in Europe. Two of these tests
were combined and the results are promising with respect to lower
particulate matter, PM, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon
monoxide, CO, and total hydrocarbon, THC, emissions, as the chart below
details:
To augment LPG's generally cleaner combustion properties, propane
engines can be calibrated to choose between pollutants, making the
engine additionally useful in achieving regional or local pollution-
reduction targets. A rich calibration reduces nitrogen oxides,
NOX, at the expense of increasing CO and non-methane
hydrocarbons and a lean calibration does just the opposite.
Propane is in surplus worldwide with 93 percent of U.S. propane
produced domestically when combined with supply from Canada. A national
infrastructure of pipelines, processing facilities, and storage, i.e.,
59 million barrel capacity in Texas alone, already exists for the
efficient distribution of propane and there are roughly 3,200 propane
dispensing stations across the U.S. Propane supply is expected to
increase over the next several decades, which means more consumer
availability and price stability.
Commercial fleets are the propane autogas vehicle target market. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
SAFETEA-LU, transportation reauthorization established significant tax
incentives for propane autogas to stimulate its use in motor vehicles
to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reduce environmental
impacts associated with gasoline and diesel fuel use. The 2005
legislation provided the following alternative fuel tax credits that
benefit propane autogas, all of which would be extended under the
legislation Senators Blunt and Stabenow and I are introducing today.
Propane Fuel Credits--SAFETEA-LU included a 50 cent per gallon credit
for propane sold for use in motor vehicles. This credit expires at the
end of 2011.
Propane Vehicle Credits--EPACT 2005 included a tax credit to
consumers who purchase OEM propane vehicles or convert gasoline or
diesel engines. The amount of credit the consumer receives varies
depending on vehicle weight and emissions. This credit is currently
expired.
Propane Infrastructure Credits--EPACT 2005 provided a tax credit
amounting to 30 percent of the cost of a fueling station, not to exceed
$30,000 per station. This credit expires at the end of 2011.
The Propane Act would extend these three tax credits for 5 years. For
the credits to have a meaningful effect in firmly establishing a robust
propane autogas market, they should be in place for a defined period of
time, not extended from year-to-year in a haphazard fashion. Congress
should not wait to act until the credits are about to expire because
market uncertainty regarding the credits undermines the effectiveness
of the incentives and discourages the kind of investment that Congress
wants the private sector to make in alternative fuels. The Propane
Green Autogas Solutions Act, if enacted, would offer the long-term
policy commitment necessary to continue building essential alternative
fuel infrastructure and bolster a burgeoning autogas market. Private
investment is much more likely to occur when the availability of the
tax credits is assured in the long-term so the propane industry can
create the economies of scale necessary to make propane autogas a
viable and competitive alternative fuel.
There is no score for the bill yet. The National Propane Gas
Association, NPGA, has retained an economic research firm to perform a
comprehensive economic review that will look at costs and offsetting
benefits, job creation, economic growth, etc.; foreign petroleum
gallons displaced; and the positive environmental impact of extending
the tax credits. The study will be available shortly and will share it
with my colleagues when it becomes available.
Recent rapid price increases for gasoline and diesel fuel have hurt
Americans families and businesses. This weekend is Memorial Day
weekend, the unofficial beginning of the summer and the summer driving
season. Our Nation needs to come to grips with a few fundamental facts.
We have 2-3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We account for about 5
percent of the world's population. We currently produce 11 percent of
the world's oil, up 11 percent over the last 2 years, in large part
because we have more drilling rigs in operation right now than the rest
of the world combined--by 50 percent. We account for 25 percent of the
world's oil consumption. ``Drill here, drill now, pay less'' is a
catchy slogan, but it's not a solution to our energy woes. As T. Boone
Pickens himself has said, we cannot drill our way of this problem. The
best way for the United States to put downward pressure on gasoline and
diesel prices is through demand reduction since we are the world's
biggest consumers of petroleum products by far. The Propane Green
Autogas Solutions Act offers one way to reduce our demand--by
substituting propane for gasoline or diesel fuel. Propane is a domestic
transportation fuel. It is less
[[Page S3442]]
expensive than gasoline and diesel fuel. It burns more cleanly. These
are all good things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
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. 1120
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Propane
Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in
terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL
CREDIT.
(a) Alternative Fuel Credit.--Paragraph (5) of section
6426(d) is amended by inserting ``, and December 31, 2016, in
the case of any sale or use involving liquefied petroleum
gas)'' after ``hydrogen''.
(b) Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit.--Paragraph (3) of
section 6426(e) is amended by inserting ``, and December 31,
2016, in the case of any sale or use involving liquefied
petroleum gas)'' after ``hydrogen''.
(c) Payments Relating to Alternative Fuel and Alternative
Fuel Mixtures.--Paragraph (6) of section 6427(e) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' in subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``subparagraphs (D) and (E)'', and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end thereof,
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) any alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as
so defined) involving liquefied petroleum gas sold or used
after December 31, 2016.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to liquefied petroleum gas sold or used after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF NEW QUALIFIED
ALTERNATIVE FUEL MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 30B(k) is amended
by inserting ``(December 31, 2016, in the case of a vehicle
powered by liquefied petroleum gas)'' before the period at
the end.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING
PROPERTY CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 30C is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by
redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and by
inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) in the case of property relating to liquefied
petroleum gas, after December 31, 2016, and''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Udall of
Colorado):
S. 1126. A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to insure loans for financing
of renewable energy systems leased for residential use, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Renewable Energy Access through Leasing Act of 2011 or the REAL Act of
2011. I'd like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Mark Udall
for joining in this bipartisan effort.
Many homeowners would like to install solar panels or other renewable
energy systems, but face the daunting challenge of paying the upfront
cost for the technology. To purchase and install a new solar energy
system, for example, can cost between $20,000 and $30,000. This is a
significant and often prohibitive cost, even when more than justified
by long-term savings.
A promising option to promote residential use of renewable energy is
leasing. Here is how it works: A company pays to purchase and install
the system and the homeowner pays a fixed monthly fee to lease the
renewable energy system from the company. It is easy for the homeowner,
often requires no upfront cost, and can even save them money on
electricity bills. Leasing has been successfully used for everything
from satellite TV dishes to car. Why not solar panels too?
One of the problems has been that renewable energy system leasing
does not have a well-established financial market. Investors are
reluctant to pursue these opportunities, in large part because of the
uncertain lifespan of the renewable energy systems. The REAL Act would
address that problem by having the Department of Energy insure the
value of the lease. This would help create a secondary market for
renewable energy system leases to residential customers, freeing up
additional capital to invest in these programs.
The benefits of renewable energy are manifold and well-documented.
Renewable energy creates jobs. From the engineers who design the
systems to the technicians who install them, this industry has the
potential to support thousands of new jobs.
Renewable energy promotes energy independence. Oil still accounts for
approximately 40 percent of our total energy needs, and seventy percent
of this oil is imported from foreign countries, many of whom, to put it
mildly, are not committed to our best interests. We are sending $1
billion per day overseas to fund this addiction.
Renewable energy reduces harmful pollution. Many of our current dirty
sources of energy are significant contributors to air pollution,
leading to increased cases of asthma, respiratory diseases, and birth
defects. Moreover, these energy sources are significant contributors to
global climate change, harming our communities through sea level rise
and increased extreme weather. Rapidly rising greenhouse gas
concentrations are also putting severe strain on our oceans through
acidification and temperature change, creating conditions not seen for
millions of years. In my home state of Rhode Island, the Narragansett
Bay has witnessed a 4 degree increase in average annual temperature,
causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.
It is hard to disagree that renewable energy offers solutions to many
of the problems facing our country. But there is often disagreement
about the best way forward to promote renewable energy. Some are
concerned about the budget impact of promoting renewable energy, some
are concerned about government mandates, and some are concerned about
government subsidies. While we may disagree on other means to promote
renewable energy, I am hoping that we can all agree on this bipartisan
proposal.
The REAL Act would not add a dime to the budget deficit. The
Congressional Budget Office scored similar legislation last Congress as
having no budget impact. It achieves this goal because the insurance
program is paid for entirely through premiums. The bill also protects
the taxpayer in the case of a default because the government has the
right to collect revenues directly from the renewable energy system.
The REAL Act is not a subsidy and requires no appropriation. It
relies on the value of the renewable energy system itself to provide
the basis for the insurance.
The REAL Act is also not a mandate. It has no requirement to use the
leasing mechanism, but merely facilitates the expansion of renewable
energy leasing to homeowners.
While this bill is only one piece of the puzzle to solving our
overall energy problem, I hope that it is a piece we can all agree on.
Providing additional options to lease renewable energy systems is a win
for our homeowners, our economy, and our environment.
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. 1126
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 ``Renewable Energy Access
through Leasing Act of 2011'' or the ``REAL Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. LOANS FOR FINANCING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
LEASED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
Subtitle A of title IV of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 is amended by inserting after section
413 (42 U.S.C. 17071) the following:
``SEC. 414. LOANS FOR FINANCING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
LEASED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
[[Page S3443]]
``(1) to encourage residential use of renewable energy
systems by minimizing upfront costs and providing immediate
utility cost savings to consumers through leasing of those
systems to homeowners;
``(2) to reduce carbon emissions and the use of
nonrenewable resources;
``(3) to encourage energy-efficient residential
construction and rehabilitation;
``(4) to encourage the use of renewable resources by
homeowners;
``(5) to minimize the impact of development on the
environment;
``(6) to reduce consumer utility costs; and
``(7) to encourage private investment in the green economy.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Authorized renewable energy lender.--The term
`authorized renewable energy lender' means a lender
authorized by the Secretary to make a loan under this
section.
``(2) Renewable energy system lease.--The term `renewable
system energy lease' means an agreement between an authorized
renewable energy system owner and a homeowner for a term of
not less than 5 years, under which the homeowner--
``(A) grants an easement to the renewable energy system
owner to install, maintain, use, and otherwise access the
renewable energy system; and
``(B) agrees to--
``(i) lease the use of the system from the renewable energy
system owner; or
``(ii) a power purchase agreement.
``(3) Renewable energy manufacturer.--The term `renewable
energy manufacturer' means a manufacturer of renewable energy
systems.
``(4) Renewable energy system.--The term `renewable energy
system' means a system of energy derived from--
``(A) a wind, solar (including photovoltaic and solar
thermal), biomass (including biodiesel), or geothermal
source; or
``(B) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an
energy source described in subparagraph (A).
``(5) Renewable energy system owner.--The term `renewable
energy system owner' means a homebuilder, a manufacturer or
installer of a renewable energy system, or any other person,
as determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, on application by an
authorized renewable energy system owner, insure or make a
commitment to insure a loan made by an authorized renewable
energy lender to a renewable energy system owner to finance
the acquisition of a renewable energy system for lease to a
homeowner for use at the residence of the homeowner.
``(2) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may prescribe
such terms and conditions for insurance under paragraph (1)
as are consistent with the purposes of this section.
``(d) Limitation on Principal Amount.--
``(1) Limitation.--The principal amount of a loan insured
under this section shall not exceed the residual value of the
renewable energy system to be acquired with the loan.
``(2) Residual value.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the residual value of a renewable energy system shall
be the fair market value of the future revenue stream from
the sale of the expected remaining electricity production
from the system, pursuant to the easement granted in
accordance with subsection (e); and
``(B) the fair market value of the future revenue stream
for each year of the remaining life of the renewable energy
system shall be determined based on the net present value of
the power output production warranty for the renewable energy
system provided by the renewable energy manufacturer and the
forecast of regional residential electricity prices made by
the Energy Information Administration of the Department.
``(e) Easement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not insure a loan
under this section unless the renewable energy system owner
certifies, in accordance with such requirements as the
Secretary shall establish, consistent with the purposes of
this section, that the renewable energy system financed will
be leased only to a homeowner that grants an easement to
install, maintain, use, and otherwise access the renewable
energy system that includes the right to sell electricity
produced during the life of the renewable energy system to a
wholesale or retail electrical power grid.
``(2) Assumable lease.--The renewable energy system lease
shall specify that the renewable energy system lease can be
assumed by new homeowners.
``(f) Discount or Prepayment.--
``(1) In general.--To encourage the use of renewable energy
systems, the Secretary shall ensure that a discount given to
a homeowner by a renewable energy system owner or other
investor or prepayment of a renewable energy system lease by
a renewable energy system owner does not adversely affect the
mortgage requirements of the homeowner.
``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary may consult with agencies and entities involved in
oversight of home mortgages.
``(g) Eligibility of Lenders.--The Secretary may not insure
a loan under this section unless the lender making the loan
is an institution that meets such requirements as the
Secretary shall establish for participation of renewable
energy lenders in the program under this section.
``(h) Certificate of Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue to a lender
that is insured under this section a certificate that serves
as evidence of insurance coverage under this section.
``(2) Contents of certificate.--The certificate required
under paragraph (1) shall describe the fair market value of
the future revenue stream for each year of the remaining life
of the renewable energy system.
``(3) Full faith and credit.--The certificate required
under paragraph (1) shall be backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States.
``(i) Payment of Insurance Claim.--
``(1) Filing of claim.--The Secretary shall provide for the
filing of claims for insurance under this section and the
payment of the claims.
``(2) Payment of claim.--A claim under paragraph (1) may be
paid only on a default under the loan insured under this
section and the assignment, transfer, and delivery to the
Secretary of--
``(A) all rights and interests arising under the loan; and
``(B) all claims of the lender or the assigns of the lender
against the borrower or others arising under the loan
transaction.
``(3) Lien.--
``(A) In general.--On payment of a claim for insurance of a
loan under this section, the Secretary shall hold a lien on
the underlying renewable energy system assets and any
associated revenue stream from the use of the system, which
shall be superior to all other liens on the assets.
``(B) Residual value.--The residual value of the renewable
energy system and the revenue stream from the use of the
system shall be not less than the unpaid balance of the loan
amount covered by the certificate of insurance.
``(C) Revenue from sale.--The Secretary shall be entitled
to any revenue generated by the renewable energy system from
selling electricity to the grid when an insurance claim has
been paid out.
``(j) Assignment and Transferability of Insurance.--A
renewable energy system owner or an authorized renewable
energy lender that is insured under this section may assign
or transfer the insurance, in whole or in part, to another
owner or lender, subject to such requirements as the
Secretary may prescribe.
``(k) Premiums and Charges.--
``(1) Insurance premiums.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall fix and collect
premiums for insurance of loans under this section, that
shall be--
``(i) paid by the applicant renewable energy system owner
at the time of issuance of the certificate of insurance to
the lender; and
``(ii) adequate, as determined by the Secretary, to cover
the expenses and probable losses of administering the program
under this section.
``(B) Deposit of premium.--The Secretary shall deposit any
premiums collected under this subsection in the Renewable
Energy Lease Insurance Fund established by subsection (l).
``(2) Prohibition on other charges.--Except as provided in
paragraph (1), the Secretary may not assess any other fee
(including a user fee), insurance premium, or charge in
connection with loan insurance provided under this section.
``(l) Renewable Energy Lease Insurance Fund.--
``(1) Fund established.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States the Renewable Energy Lease
Insurance Fund (referred to in this subsection as the
`Fund'), which shall be available to the Secretary without
fiscal year limitation, for the purpose of providing
insurance under this section.
``(2) Credits.--The Fund shall be credited with--
``(A) any premiums collected under subsection (k)(1);
``(B) any amounts collected by the Secretary under
subsection (i)(3); and
``(C) any associated interest or earnings.
``(3) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available
to the Secretary for--
``(A) fulfilling any obligations with respect to insurance
for loans provided under this section; and
``(B) paying administrative expenses in connection with
this section.
``(4) Excess amounts.--The Secretary may invest in
obligations of the United States any amounts in the Fund
determined by the Secretary to be in excess of amounts
required at the time of the determination to carry out this
section.
``(m) Ineligibility for Purchase by Federal Financing
Bank.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no debt
obligation that is insured or committed to be insured by the
Secretary under this section shall be subject to the Federal
Financing Bank Act of 1973 (12 U.S.C. 2281 et seq.).
``(n) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.
``(2) Multifamily housing.--In issuing the regulations, the
Secretary shall ensure that multifamily housing units are
eligible for programs established by this section.
``(3) Timing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue interim
or final regulations.
``(o) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the
Secretary to insure and make commitments to insure new loans
under this
[[Page S3444]]
section shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after
the date of enactment of this section.''.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1130. A bill to strengthen the United States trade laws and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect
American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a
level playing field with foreign companies.
The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a
placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on
introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative
action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending
Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally
dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this
bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy
forward.
The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to
live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing
the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a
seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens
countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from
countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized.
Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO,
from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve
of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with
an adverse WTO decision.
This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep
their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to
treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to
with countervailing duties.
My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent
adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that
obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our
government has not previously agreed to.
These steps are important because businesses like those in my home
state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods
that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive
American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West
Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can
have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years
in response to these challenges.
I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers,
testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on
behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an
effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give
American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It
has become clear to me through the years though that the current
protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow
our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this
bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American
businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the
merits of their ideas and their hard work.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Portman, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1133. A bill to prevent the evasion of antidumping and
countervailing duty orders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, President, I rise today to introduce the
Enforcing Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act, or the
ENFORCE Act, of 2011.
For almost a century, Democratic and Republican Administrations have
promoted and protected America's anti-dumping and countervailing duty
laws. These laws recognize the reality that foreign competitors don't
always play by the rules. Some employ unfair and unscrupulous trade
practices that put American businesses at a serious disadvantage. So,
when it comes to ensuring that American businesses and workers have a
level playing field to compete, anti-dumping and countervailing duty
laws are the first line of defense.
But it is not enough to just pass these laws; they need to be
enforced. Duties don't work unless they are assessed and collected. But
just like some people cheat their way out of taxes, the same is true
for foreign supplies and dishonest importers who evade and flout the
anti-dumping and countervailing duties that protect American business
and workers from grievous economic harm.
These suppliers and importers are what I call trade cheats.
You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be
unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is
sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes
additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti-
dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American
producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.
But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American
taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on
imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they
cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs.
In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.
The trade cheats are increasingly, and brazenly, employing a variety
of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their
merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from
somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide
fraudulent information' to government authorities at American ports of
entry, or they engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.
In recognizing this problem, I convened a hearing in the subcommittee
on international trade, customs and global competitiveness entitled
``Enforcing America's Trade Laws in the Face of Customs Fraud and Duty
Evasion'' in May of this year. At this hearing we heard from Senators
of both political parties and companies from across this nation about
their concerns regarding this lack of enforcement. Others launched
their own investigation into the matter.
My own staff on the Finance Subcommittee on Trade, Customs and
Competitiveness learned that if often takes Customs and Border
Protection, CBP, nearly a year to ask its sister agencies for
investigatory help when it is needed and when CBP does refer a case to
an outside agency they don't follow-up to ensure that it gets handled.
It generally takes several years for the government to conclude an
investigation into evasion and reassess the appropriate duties that
should have been collected.
Customs and Border Protection, is the nation's frontline defense
against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing U.S. trade remedy
laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet, if you listen to the concerns of
domestic producers, like those who testified at my hearing, timely and
effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains problematic and AD/CV
duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.
While Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and CBP are
dragging their feet to enforce our trade laws, this country's domestic
manufacturers are being hammered by foreign trade cheats. It is not
like the cheaters wait around to get caught and pay their fines, they
disappear long before the so called government watchdogs arrive. ICE
and CBP are the two principal American government agencies that are
supposed to police this beat. In my view, one of them, CBP, treats
allegations of duty evasion like junk mail. The other, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, has been more visible on the issue of alleged
illegal movie downloads than taking steps to protect tens of thousands
of manufacturing jobs that are threatened by unfair trade.
Such lollygagging is not only hurting our domestic producer, it is
hurting our country's treasury. U.S. industry sources estimate that
approximately
[[Page S3445]]
$91 million in AD/CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just
four steel products went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009.
This is an amount equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected
that year. With 300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless
products from over 40 countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion
is vast, and hundreds of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted
for. Every penny counts and we have an obligation to the American
businesses, and the workers they rely on, to do a better job.
The bill I am introducing today, with Senators Snowe, McCaskill,
Blunt, Brown from Ohio, Portman, and Schumer, will go a long way toward
empowering the federal government to do a better job to combat the
trade cheats and enforce U.S. trade laws. I would like to highlight
just a few of the main provisions.
First, the ENFORCE Act would formalize a process by which allegations
of evasion are acted on. Because CBP primarily relies on the private
sector to identify evasion of AD/CVD, the ENFORCE Act would formalize
that process by allowing stakeholders to file a petition alleging
evasion and require CBP to initiate an investigation pursuant to the
petition within 10 days.
Second, our bill would establish a rapid-response timeline by which
CBP would investigate allegations of evasion. The ENFORCE Act would
give the CBP 90 days, after an investigation of evasion begins, to make
a preliminary determination into whether there is a reason to believe
an importer is evading an AD/CVD order. So if an affirmative
preliminary determination is made, AD/CV duties would be required to be
collected in cash until the investigation is concluded and any entries
of subject merchandise would not be liquidated by CBP in order to
ensure that the correct amount of duties owed can be collected. CBP
would also be required to make a final determination as to whether
merchandise subject to an investigation under the bill entered into the
U.S. through an evasion scheme within 120 days after CBP has issued a
preliminary determination. Flexibilities are added to these timelines
for cases that are complex. All of this would put an end to the
lollygagging that our domestic producers would desperately like to see
ended.
Third, the ENFORCE Act would help facilitate information sharing. Our
bill would establish clear instruction and guidelines to promote
appropriate information sharing among the various agencies to better
combat evasion and protect consumers from unsafe goods. Everyone knows
that the more information law enforcement agencies have, the better
they are able to do their jobs.
Last and certainly not least, our bill would establish
accountability. CBP's broad mandate to facilitate trade, enforce trade
remedy laws, and protect national security often leads to inconsistent
efforts to combat evasion of the trade remedy laws. The ENFORCE Act
would require CBP to provide annual reports to us here in Congress
about the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts and the job it is
required to do to protect American producers from the harm of unfairly
traded imports.
As you can see, this bill presents a common-sense strategy to combat
trade cheating and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty
collection. Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade
practices must be a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that
is designed to promote economic growth and job expansion, especially as
we continue to recover from a recession.
I want to take a moment to recognize and thank some terrific
colleagues of mine in the Senate that are joining me in introducing
this legislation. I thank you, and your staff, for your help and for
your efforts. I would also like to thank the Retail Industry Leaders
Association, the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, and the
Coalition to Enforce Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Orders for their
valuable input. I look forward to more of their input going forward.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with
my friends in the House of Representatives to build support for this
initiative and to take action on behalf of American producers.
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. 1133
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Enforcing
Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--PROCEDURES
Sec. 101. Procedures for investigating claims of evasion of antidumping
and countervailing duty orders.
Sec. 102. Application to Canada and Mexico.
TITLE II--OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Allocation of U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Sec. 203. Regulations.
Sec. 204. Annual report on prevention of evasion of antidumping and
countervailing duty orders.
Sec. 205. Government Accountability Office report on reliquidation
authority.
TITLE I--PROCEDURES
SEC. 101. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING CLAIMS OF EVASION OF
ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.
(a) In General.--The Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by
inserting after section 516A (19 U.S.C. 1516a) the following:
``SEC. 516B. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING CLAIMS OF EVASION
OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administering authority.--The term `administering
authority' has the meaning given that term in section 771(1).
``(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
``(B) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
``(3) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the
Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
``(4) Covered merchandise.--The term `covered merchandise'
means merchandise that is subject to--
``(A) an antidumping duty order issued under section 736;
``(B) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921; or
``(C) a countervailing duty order issued under section 706.
``(5) Enter; entry.--The terms `enter' and `entry' refer to
the entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in
the customs territory of the United States.
``(6) Evade; evasion.--The terms `evade' and `evasion'
refer to entering covered merchandise into the customs
territory of the United States by means of any document or
electronically transmitted data or information, written or
oral statement, or act that is material and false, or any
omission that is material, and that results in any cash
deposit or other security or any amount of applicable
antidumping or countervailing duties being reduced or not
being applied with respect to the merchandise.
``(7) Interested party.--The term `interested party' has
the meaning given that term in section 771(9).
``(b) Procedures for Investigating Allegations of
Evasion.--
``(1) Initiation by petition or referral.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 10 days after the date on
which the Commissioner receives a petition described in
subparagraph (B) or a referral described in subparagraph (C),
the Commissioner shall initiate an investigation pursuant to
this paragraph if the Commissioner determines that the
information provided in the petition or the referral, as the
case may be, is accurate and reasonably suggests that covered
merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of
the United States through evasion.
``(B) Petition described.--A petition described in this
subparagraph is a petition that--
``(i) is filed with the Commissioner by any party who is an
interested party with respect to covered merchandise;
``(ii) alleges that a person has entered covered
merchandise into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion; and
``(iii) is accompanied by information reasonably available
to the petitioner supporting the allegation.
``(C) Referral described.--A referral described in this
subparagraph is information submitted to the Commissioner by
any other Federal agency, including the Department of
Commerce or the United States International Trade Commission,
indicating that a person has entered covered merchandise into
the customs territory of the United States through evasion.
``(2) Determinations.--
``(A) Preliminary determination.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Commissioner
[[Page S3446]]
initiates an investigation under paragraph (1), the
Commissioner shall issue a preliminary determination, based
on information available to the Commissioner at the time of
the determination, with respect to whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the covered
merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the
United States through evasion.
``(ii) Extension.--The Commissioner may extend by not more
than 45 days the time period specified in clause (i) if the
Commissioner determines that sufficient information to make a
preliminary determination under that clause is not available
within that time period or the inquiry is unusually complex.
``(B) Final determination.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after making a
preliminary determination under subparagraph (A), the
Commissioner shall make a final determination, based on
substantial evidence, with respect to whether covered
merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the
United States through evasion.
``(ii) Extension.--The Commissioner may extend by not more
than 60 days the time period specified in clause (i) if the
Commissioner determines that sufficient information to make a
final determination under that clause is not available within
that time period or the inquiry is unusually complex.
``(C) Opportunity for comment; hearing.--Before issuing a
preliminary determination under subparagraph (A) or a final
determination under subparagraph (B) with respect to whether
covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of
the United States through evasion, the Commissioner shall--
``(i) provide any person alleged to have entered the
merchandise into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion, and any person that is an interested party
with respect to the merchandise, with an opportunity to be
heard;
``(ii) upon request, hold a hearing with respect to whether
the covered merchandise was entered into the customs
territory of the United States through evasion; and
``(iii) provide an opportunity for public comment.
``(D) Authority to collect and verify additional
information.--In making a preliminary determination under
subparagraph (A) or a final determination under subparagraph
(B), the Commissioner--
``(i) shall exercise all existing authorities to collect
information needed to make the determination; and
``(ii) may collect such additional information as is
necessary to make the determination through such methods as
the Commissioner considers appropriate, including by--
``(I) issuing a questionnaire with respect to covered
merchandise to--
``(aa) a person that filed a petition under paragraph
(1)(B);
``(bb) a person alleged to have entered covered merchandise
into the customs territory of the United States through
evasion; or
``(cc) any other person that is an interested party with
respect to the covered merchandise; or
``(II) conducting verifications, including on-site
verifications, of any relevant information.
``(E) Adverse inference.--
``(i) In general.--If the Commissioner finds that a person
that filed a petition under paragraph (1)(B), a person
alleged to have entered covered merchandise into the customs
territory of the United States through evasion, or a foreign
producer or exporter, has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of the person's ability to comply with a request
for information, the Commissioner may, in making a
preliminary determination under subparagraph (A) or a final
determination under subparagraph (B), use an inference that
is adverse to the interests of that person in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available to determine whether
evasion has occurred.
``(ii) Adverse inference described.--An adverse inference
used under clause (i) may include reliance on information
derived from--
``(I) the petition, if any, submitted under paragraph
(1)(B) with respect to the covered merchandise;
``(II) a determination by the Commissioner in another
investigation under this section;
``(III) an investigation or review by the administering
authority under title VII; or
``(IV) any other information placed on the record.
``(F) Notification and publication.--Not later than 7 days
after making a preliminary determination under subparagraph
(A) or a final determination under subparagraph (B), the
Commissioner shall--
``(i) provide notification of the determination to--
``(I) the administering authority; and
``(II) the person that submitted the petition under
paragraph (1)(B) or the Federal agency that submitted the
referral under paragraph (1)(C); and
``(ii) provide the determination for publication in the
Federal Register.
``(3) Business proprietary information.--
``(A) Establishment of procedures.--For each investigation
initiated under paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall
establish procedures for the submission of business
proprietary information under an administrative protective
order that--
``(i) protects against public disclosure of such
information; and
``(ii) for purposes of submitting comments to the
Commissioner, provides limited access to such information
for--
``(I) the person that submitted the petition under
paragraph (1)(B) or the Federal agency that submitted the
referral under paragraph (1)(C); and
``(II) the person alleged to have entered covered
merchandise into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion.
``(B) Administration in accordance with other procedures.--
The procedures established under subparagraph (A) shall be
administered--
``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner
similar to the manner in which the administering authority
administers the administrative protective order procedures
under section 777;
``(ii) in accordance with section 1905 of title 18, United
States Code; and
``(iii) in a manner that is consistent with the obligations
of the United States under the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (referred to in section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(8)) (relating to customs
valuation).
``(C) Disclosure of business proprietary information.--The
Commissioner shall, in accordance with the procedures
established under subparagraph (A) and consistent with
subparagraph (B), make all business proprietary information
presented to, or obtained by, the Commissioner during an
investigation available to the persons specified in
subparagraph (A)(ii) under an administrative protective
order, regardless of when such information is submitted
during an investigation.
``(4) Referrals to other federal agencies.--
``(A) After preliminary determination.--Notwithstanding
section 777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the
Commissioner makes an affirmative preliminary determination
under paragraph (2)(A), the Commissioner shall, at the
request of the head of another Federal agency, transmit the
administrative record to the head of that agency.
``(B) After final determination.--Notwithstanding section
777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the Commissioner
makes an affirmative final determination under paragraph
(2)(B), the Commissioner shall, at the request of the head of
another Federal agency, transmit the complete administrative
record to the head of that agency.
``(C) Protective orders.--Before transmitting an
administrative record to the head of another Federal agency
under subparagraph (A) or (B), the Commissioner shall verify
that the other agency has in effect with respect to the
administrative record a protective order that provides the
same or a similar level of protection for the information in
the administrative record as the protective order in effect
with respect to such information under this subsection.
``(c) Effect of Determinations.--
``(1) Effect of affirmative preliminary determination.--If
the Commissioner makes a preliminary determination in
accordance with subsection (b)(2)(A) that there is a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that covered
merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the
United States through evasion, the Commissioner shall--
``(A) suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry of
the covered merchandise that is subject to the preliminary
determination and that entered on or after the date of the
initiation of the investigation under paragraph (1);
``(B) review and reassess the amount of bond or other
security the importer is required to post for each entry of
merchandise described in subparagraph (A);
``(C) require the posting of a cash deposit with respect to
each entry of merchandise described in subparagraph (A); and
``(D) take such other measures as the Commissioner
determines appropriate to ensure the collection of any duties
that may be owed with respect to merchandise described in
subparagraph (A) as a result of a final determination under
subsection (b)(2)(B).
``(2) Effect of negative preliminary determination.--If the
Commissioner makes a preliminary determination in accordance
with subsection (b)(2)(A) that there is not a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect that covered merchandise was
entered into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion, the Commissioner shall continue the
investigation and notify the administering authority pending
a final determination under subsection (b)(2)(B).
``(3) Effect of affirmative final determination.--If the
Commissioner makes a final determination in accordance with
subsection (b)(2)(B) that covered merchandise was entered
into the customs territory of the United States through
evasion, the Commissioner shall--
``(A) suspend or continue to suspend, as the case may be,
the liquidation of each entry of the covered merchandise that
is subject to the determination and that enters on or after
the date of the determination;
``(B) notify the administering authority of the
determination and request that the administering authority--
``(i) identify the applicable antidumping or countervailing
duty assessment rate for the entries for which liquidation is
suspended under paragraph (1)(A) or subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph; or
``(ii) if no such assessment rates are available at the
time, identify the applicable cash
[[Page S3447]]
deposit rate to be applied to the entries described in
subparagraph (A), with the applicable antidumping or
countervailing duty assessment rates to be provided as soon
as such rates become available;
``(C) require the posting of cash deposits and assess
duties on each entry of merchandise described in subparagraph
(A) in accordance with the instructions received from the
administering authority under paragraph (5);
``(D) review and reassess the amount of bond or other
security the importer is required to post for merchandise
described in subparagraph (A) to ensure the protection of
revenue and compliance with the law; and
``(E) take such additional enforcement measures as the
Commissioner determines appropriate, such as--
``(i) initiating proceedings under section 592 or 596;
``(ii) implementing, in consultation with the relevant
Federal agencies, rule sets or modifications to rules sets
for identifying, particularly through the Automated Targeting
System and the Automated Commercial Environment, importers,
other parties, and merchandise that may be associated with
evasion;
``(iii) requiring, with respect to merchandise for which
the importer has repeatedly provided incomplete or erroneous
entry summary information in connection with determinations
of evasion, the importer to submit entry summary
documentation and to deposit estimated duties at the time of
entry;
``(iv) referring the record in whole or in part to U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement for civil or criminal
investigation; and
``(v) transmitting the administrative record to the
administering authority for further appropriate proceedings.
``(4) Effect of negative final determination.--If the
Commissioner makes a final determination in accordance with
subsection (b)(2)(B) that covered merchandise was not entered
into the customs territory of the United States through
evasion, the Commissioner shall terminate the suspension of
liquidation pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) and refund any cash
deposits collected pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) that are in
excess of the cash deposit rate that would otherwise have
been applicable the merchandise.
``(5) Cooperation of administering authority.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving a notification from the
Commissioner under paragraph (3)(B), the administering
authority shall promptly provide to the Commissioner the
applicable cash deposit rates and antidumping or
countervailing duty assessment rates and any necessary
liquidation instructions.
``(B) Special rule for cases in which the producer or
exporter is unknown.--If the Commissioner and administering
authority are unable to determine the producer or exporter of
the merchandise with respect to which a notification is made
under paragraph (3)(B), the administering authority shall
identify, as the applicable cash deposit rate or antidumping
or countervailing duty assessment rate, the cash deposit or
duty (as the case may be) in the highest amount applicable to
any producer or exporter, including the `all-others' rate of
the merchandise subject to an antidumping order or
countervailing duty order under section 736 or 706,
respectively, or a finding issued under the Antidumping Act,
1921, or any administrative review conducted under section
751.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Effect on other authorities.--Neither the initiation
of an investigation under subsection (b)(1) nor a preliminary
determination or a final determination under subsection
(b)(2) shall affect the authority of the Commissioner--
``(A) to pursue such other enforcement measures with
respect to the evasion of antidumping or countervailing
duties as the Commissioner determines necessary, including
enforcement measures described in clauses (i) through (iv) of
subsection (c)(3)(E); or
``(B) to assess any penalties or collect any applicable
duties, taxes, and fees, including pursuant to section 592.
``(2) Effect of determinations on fraud actions.--Neither a
preliminary determination nor a final determination under
subsection (b)(2) shall be determinative in a proceeding
under section 592.
``(3) Negligence or intent.--The Commissioner shall
investigate and make a preliminary determination or a final
determination under this section with respect to whether a
person has entered covered merchandise into the customs
territory of the United States through evasion without regard
to whether the person--
``(A) intended to violate an antidumping duty order or
countervailing duty order under section 736 or 706,
respectively, or a finding issued under the Antidumping Act,
1921; or
``(B) exercised reasonable care with respect to avoiding a
violation of such an order or finding.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Clause (ii) of section
777(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1677f(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) to an officer or employee of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection who is directly involved in conducting an
investigation regarding fraud under this title or claims of
evasion under section 516B.''.
(c) Judicial Review.--Section 516A(a)(2) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i)(III), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the date of publication in the Federal Register of
a determination described in clause (ix) of subparagraph
(B),''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(ix) A determination by the Commissioner responsible for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection under section 516B that
merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of
the United States through evasion.''.
(d) Finality of Determinations.--Section 514(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514(b)) is amended by striking
``section 303'' and all that follows through ``which are
reviewable'' and inserting ``section 516B or title VII that
are reviewable''.
SEC. 102. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.
Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3438), the amendments
made by this title shall apply with respect to goods from
Canada and Mexico.
TITLE II--OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the terms ``appropriate congressional
committees'', ``Commissioner'', ``covered merchandise'',
``enter'' and ``entry'', and ``evade'' and ``evasion'' have
the meanings given those terms in section 516B(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (as added by section 101 of this Act).
SEC. 202. ALLOCATION OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
PERSONNEL.
(a) Reassignment and Allocation.--The Commissioner shall,
to the maximum extent possible, ensure that U.S. Customs and
Border Protection--
(1) employs sufficient personnel who have expertise in, and
responsibility for, preventing the entry of covered
merchandise into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion; and
(2) on the basis of risk assessment metrics, assigns
sufficient personnel with primary responsibility for
preventing the entry of covered merchandise into the customs
territory of the United States through evasion to the ports
of entry in the United States at which the Commissioner
determines potential evasion presents the most substantial
threats to the revenue of the United States.
(b) Commercial Enforcement Officers.--Not later than
September 30, 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Commissioner, and the Assistant Secretary for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall assess and properly
allocate the resources of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--
(1) to effectively implement the provisions of, and
amendments made by, this Act; and
(2) to improve efforts to investigate and combat evasion.
SEC. 203. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 240 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall issue
regulations to carry out this title and the amendments made
by title I.
(b) Cooperation Between U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Department of
Commerce.--Not later than 240 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, the Assistant
Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
the Secretary of Commerce shall establish procedures to
ensure maximum cooperation and communication between U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and the Department of Commerce in order to
quickly, efficiently, and accurately investigate allegations
of evasion under section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as
added by section 101 of this Act).
SEC. 204. ANNUAL REPORT ON PREVENTION OF EVASION OF
ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Not later than February 28 of each year,
beginning in 2012, the Commissioner, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce, shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the efforts being taken
pursuant to section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as added
by section 101 of this Act) to prevent the entry of covered
merchandise into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion.
(b) Contents.--Each report required under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) for the fiscal year preceding the submission of the
report--
(A) the number and a brief description of petitions and
referrals received pursuant to section 516B(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (as added by section 101 of this Act);
(B) the results of the investigations initiated under such
section, including any related enforcement actions, and the
amount of antidumping and countervailing duties collected as
a result of those investigations; and
(C) to the extent appropriate, a summary of the efforts of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, other than efforts
initiated pursuant section 516B of the Tariff Act of 1930
[[Page S3448]]
(as added by section 101 of this Act), to prevent the entry
of covered merchandise into the customs territory of the
United States through evasion; and
(2) for the 3 fiscal years preceding the submission of the
report, an estimate of--
(A) the amount of covered merchandise that entered the
customs territory of the United States through evasion; and
(B) the amount of duties that could not be collected on
such merchandise because the Commissioner did not have the
authority to reliquidate the entries of such merchandise.
SEC. 205. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON
RELIQUIDATION AUTHORITY.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees, and make
available to the public, a report estimating the amount of
duties that could not be collected on covered merchandise
that entered the customs territory of the United States
through evasion during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 because the
Commissioner did not have the authority to reliquidate the
entries of such merchandise.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Paul):
S. 1135. A bill to provide for the reenrichment of certain depleted
uranium owned by the Department of Energy, and for the sale or barter
of the resulting reenriched uranium, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1135
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 ``Energy and Revenue
Enrichment Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Energy.
(2) Enrichment plant.--The term ``enrichment plant'' means
a uranium enrichment plant owned by the Department of Energy
with respect to which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
made a determination of compliance under section 1701(b)(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297f(b)(2)).
(3) Qualified operator.--The term ``qualified operator''
means a company that has experience in operating an
enrichment plant under Nuclear Regulatory Commission
authorization and has the ability and workforce to enrich the
depleted uranium that is owned by the Department of Energy.
(4) Reenrichment.--The term ``reenrichment'' means
increasing the weight percent of U-235 in uranium in order to
make the uranium usable.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
SEC. 3. REENRICHMENT CONTRACT.
(a) In General.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract
with a qualified operator for a 24 month pilot program for
the reenrichment at an enrichment plant of the depleted
uranium described in section 2(3) that the Secretary finds
economically viable. The Secretary shall seek to maximize the
financial return to the Federal Government in negotiating the
terms of such contract.
(2) Amount of enrichment.--The Secretary shall, during each
year of the pilot program under this subsection, conduct
uranium reenrichment under such program in an amount
(measured in separative work units) equal to approximately 25
percent of the aggregate uranium enrichment conducted in the
United States during calendar year 2010.
(3) Economic viability.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
uranium shall be considered economically viable if the cost
to the United States of the reenrichment thereof, including
the costs of the contract entered into under paragraph (1),
are less than the revenue anticipated from the sale of the
reenriched uranium.
(b) Commencement of Reenrichment Activities.--Reenrichment
activities under the contract entered into under subsection
(a) shall commence as soon as possible, but no later than
June 1, 2012.
(c) Sale of Reenriched Uranium.--The Secretary may from
time to time sell the reenriched uranium generated pursuant
to the contract entered into under subsection (a).
(d) Allocation and Use of Proceeds.--Any funds received by
the Secretary from the sale of reenriched uranium generated
pursuant to the contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall be allocated as follows:
(1) First, such funds shall be available to the Secretary,
without further appropriation and without fiscal year
limitation, to carry out this section, including amounts
required to be paid under the contract entered into under
subsection (a).
(2) Any amounts not required for the purposes described in
paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established in
section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2297g), to be available for use, without further
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation.
SEC. 4. DEPLETED URANIUM.
(a) Title and Responsibility for Disposition.--The
Secretary shall assume title to, and responsibility for the
disposition of, all depleted uranium generated pursuant to
the contract entered into under section 3(a).
(b) Funding for Reenrichment.--To provide funding for
payments under the contract entered into under section 3(a),
the Secretary may--
(1) assume title to, and responsibility for the disposition
of, depleted uranium in addition to the depleted uranium
specified in subsection (a); and
(2) transfer to the qualified operator title to uranium
generated as a result of the reenrichment pursuant to the
contract entered into under section 3(a).
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL URANIUM SALES.
(a) Initial Period.--Notwithstanding section 3112(d) of the
USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h--10(d)), during the
24 month pilot program and the subsequent 24 months after
that program is complete, the Secretary may not during any
calendar year sell an amount of uranium that exceeds 15
percent of the United States' domestic uranium supply for
that year.
(b) Subsequent Period.--After the expiration of the 48
month period described in subsection (a), the Secretary may
not during any calendar year sell an amount of uranium that
exceeds 10 percent of the United States' domestic uranium
supply for that year, except to the extent that the Secretary
determines that such sales will have no significant effect on
uranium markets.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1140. A bill to provide for restoration of the coastal areas of
the Gulf of Mexico affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce
legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science
and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct
funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming
from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine
restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and
economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I
introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the
bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce
Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard .
. . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and
ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational
aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine
and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and
services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science,
engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . .
transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer
Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware
that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of
these issues.
In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and
considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the
Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to
clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong
views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to
restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to
assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the
promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and
reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs
needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term
restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is
intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to
ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with
emergency response technology and programs, to support improved
offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising
this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 1141. A bill to exempt children of certain Filipino World War II
veterans
[[Page S3449]]
from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation
that would remove the obstacles preventing Filipino veterans of World
War II from being united with their children, a situation whose roots
reach back almost eight decades.
The Philippine Independence Act of 1934 established the Philippines,
a U.S. possession since 1898, as a commonwealth with certain powers
over its internal affairs but with sovereign power retained by the
United States. The Act also established a ten-year timetable for the
commonwealth to achieve independence from the United States.
In early 1941, in the face of Japan's military aggression in Asia,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked his authority, based on the
retention of U.S. sovereign power over the Philippines to ``call and
order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States all of
the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines.''
In January of 1942, a month after it attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan
invaded the Philippines and occupied the commonwealth until August
1945.
Two months later, in March of 1942, Congress and President Roosevelt
enacted the Second War Powers Act, which included the Nationality Act
of 1940 that authorized the naturalization of all aliens serving in the
U.S. armed forces.
The 200,000 Filipinos that served in the U.S. armed forces were
critical to the Philippine resistance and to the island's liberation in
August 1945. Approximately 7,000 Filipinos who served outside the
Philippines were naturalized pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940
while another 4,000 who served inside the Philippines were naturalized
between the liberation of the Philippines in August 1945 and the
expiration of the Act on December 31, 1946.
In 1990, my distinguished colleague Senator Daniel K. Inouye was
instrumental in enacting the Immigration Act of 1990. This law offered
Filipino veterans who had not been naturalized pursuant to the
Nationality Act of 1940, the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Of the Filipino veterans who were naturalized for their service in
the U.S. armed forces, many chose to become U.S. residents. Because the
offer of naturalization did not extend to their children, these men
filed permanent resident status petitions for their children who
remained in the Philippines. Sadly, those children, now adults, have
languished on the visa waiting list for decades because of backlogs and
visa limits.
My bill, the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act of 2011,
would exempt the children in question from the numerical limitation on
visas. Family unification has been the centerpiece of U.S. Immigration
policy for more than a half century, and my bill would reunite the
Filipino veterans, now in their 80s and 90s, with their children at
long last.
The Filipino veterans and their children have been kept apart for far
too long, and I urge my colleagues to join me in making their long-
awaited reunion possible.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Durbin):
S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, I rise along with my colleagues,
Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin, to introduce renewal of
sanctions against the military junta in Burma.
The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have
changed for the better in Burma over the past year. After all,
elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier
this year, Aung San Suu Kyi was freed and the lead Burmese general Than
Shwe seemed to retire from political life. However, in Burma as is so
often the case, things are not what they seem. And that is certainly
the case here.
First, the elections that were held in November took place without
the benefit of international election monitors. All reputable observers
termed the elections not to be free or fair. This was in large part
because the National League for Democracy, NLD, Suu Kyi's party and the
overwhelming winner of the last free elections in the country in 1990,
was effectively banned by the junta and could not participate in the
election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties
could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta could be voiced. And
the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won
big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.
Second, the new regime is essentially the junta with only the
thinnest democratic veneer pulled over it. The Constitution, which
places great power in the military as it is, cannot be amended without
the blessing of the armed forces. Those in parliament are limited in
how they can criticize the regime. Moreover, sitting atop these new
institutions is rumored to be a shadowy panel known as the State
Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and
which is led by, you guessed it, the military.
The only legitimately good news of late was the freeing of Suu Kyi. I
was fortunate enough to be able to speak with her for the first time
earlier this year. Yet, the extent of her freedom remains open to
question. She was, of course, freed only following the sham election.
She and her party have also been publicly threatened by the regime;
thus, the extent to which she can move about the country or travel
overseas remains unclear. Further, more than 2,000 other political
prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than
before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced
persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the
junta.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are growing national security
factors that cause one to be even more reluctant than ever to remove
sanctions and reward bad behavior. The junta's increasingly close
bilateral military relationship with North Korea is a source of much
concern in this vein.
For all of these reasons, I believe the sanctions that are in place
should remain until true democratic reform has been instituted. That is
the position of Suu Kyi herself and of the NLD. It is also the position
of the Obama administration. In a State Department letter dated April
27, the State Department states that ``in the absence of meaningful
reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on Burma.''
As Suu Kyi herself recently stated, ``[s]o far'' there hasn't been
``any meaningful change'' since the November elections.
We should not be fooled by the transparent efforts of the regime. It
is merely trying to get out from under the international cloud of
sanctions, without making true changes in how it governs itself, treats
its people and interacts with the rest of the world.
It is my hope that my colleagues will once again renew this
bipartisan measure that in 2010 enjoyed the support of 68 Senate
cosponsors and was adopted 99-1. The bill is identical to last year's
in that it does the following: continues the ban on imports from Burma
into the U.S., including products containing rubies and jadeite;
authorizes the freezing of assets against a number of Burmese leaders;
prevents the U.S. from supporting loans for Burma in international
financial institutions; prohibits the issuance of visas to junta
officials; and limits the use of correspondent accounts that may
facilitate services for the regime's leaders. These measures would
remain in place until the regime undertakes meaningful steps toward
democratization and reconciliation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 17
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in
section 3(a)(1) and section 3A(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
[[Page S3450]]
____
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2011.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for your letter of March
29 regarding sanctions and the nomination of a Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.
On April 14, President Obama nominated Derek Mitchell as
the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.
Currently serving as the Defense Department's Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for Asian and Pacific
Security Affairs, Derek Mitchell has both the regional
expertise and diplomatic acumen to successfully enhance our
coordination of Burma policy. We will be submitting his
nomination shortly for your advice and consent.
As you note, Burma's elections were neither free nor fair
and the regime continues its repressive policies and human
rights abuses. We agree with you and the National League for
Democracy's conclusions that, in the absence of meaningful
reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on
Burma. We look forward to soon having Mr. Mitchell as the
Special Representative in place to coordinate multilateral
sanctions as called for by Section 7 of the Tom Lantos Block
JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act.
We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if we can be of further assistance on this or
any other matter.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Macmanus,
Acting Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and
colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint
resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.
We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain
and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the
President on this important matter.
Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing
this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and
support.
Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have
received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on
the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime.
On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the
democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house
arrest.
While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had
spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house
arrest.
Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired
by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for
freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.
Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days
after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based
on a sham constitution.
The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of
Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power
using the false veneer of a democratic process.
Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were
fooled.
We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were
overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in
1990 but annulled by the military junta.
This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of
the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for
Democracy.
It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of
Representatives for the military.
This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity
and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister
Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the
army to form the ``civilian'' political party.
It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections.
And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors
because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.
It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won
nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.
In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for
Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no
international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists
would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.
President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither
free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted
standards associated with legitimate elections.''
The National League for Democracy described the elections and the
formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to
a parody.''
Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime
minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's
new president.
He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military
leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.
So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council,
the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and
Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law, remain the same.
So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize
that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the
necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted.
As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we
must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military
regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights;
release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press;
allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion;
and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and
the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the
restoration of a democratic government.
Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive,
democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import
ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime.
This also includes tough banking sanctions.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the
administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta
by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its
leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block
Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.
Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the
import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of
Burma.
I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen
more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.
But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma
about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international
community.
A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for
Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general
population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country.
Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism,
corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted,
the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law.
It concludes:
Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an
all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad
spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement
of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the
democratization process, firmly grounded in national
reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should
be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions
policies.
I agree.
So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung
San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
[[Page S3451]]
____________________