Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to repeal corporate tax loopholes that allow the cruise industry to avoid paying its fair share of U.S. corporate income taxes.

These bills change the treatment of the revenue that foreign-based cruise lines earn from ships that embark or disembark nearly 15 million passengers a year in the United States. A string of recent incidents has demonstrated that when cruise ships get into trouble, the companies rely on the resources and assistance of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. The industry also uses the services of over 20 other U.S. agencies to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

The majority of cruise companies are organized as foreign corporations, even though many of their headquarters and executives are located in the United States. By incorporating in foreign countries, the cruise industry enjoys a special exemption under section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that certain foreign corporations are not subject to U.S. taxes on income derived from the international operation of ships, even if the source of the income is in the United States.

Today, I am introducing two bills, S. 1449 and S. 1450. The first would eliminate the section 883 special exemption for cruise industry income derived from passenger cruise voyages that embark or disembark passengers in the United States. This income would be treated as being U.S. sourced and effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, so it would be subject to U.S. taxes at the same rate as other income.

The second bill would impose a 5 percent excise tax on gross income from cruises where passengers embark or disembark in the United States. Funds generated from the excise tax will help fund a national program to make infrastructure improvements vital to the efficient transportation of goods and services.

For too long, the cruise industry has been able to use taxpayer provided services without actually paying for them. It is time the cruise industry begins to pay for the services it uses.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the cybersecurity legislation Senator Thune and I introduce today is built upon several years of bipartisan hard work on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I am proud of that fact and proud of our work product.

I would like to sincerely thank Senator Thune for working closely with me on this legislation. Senator Thune appreciates the gravity of the cybersecurity threat to our national security and our economy--a genuine threat to the free flow of commerce. He has been laser focused in finding workable, private sector led solutions to mitigate this existential threat.

Our bill will go a long way to better secure our nation from ongoing cyber threats by having the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, a world-class, non-regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce--facilitate and support the development of voluntary, industry-led standards and best practices to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure and all businesses.

Our bill will give NIST the permanent authority it needs to continue the standards development process initiated by the President's Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity to ensure such efforts remain industry led and voluntary.

It will also make sure that the Federal Government supports cutting edge research, works to increase public awareness, and improves our workforce to better address cyber threats.

Our country's future economic success and security demands prompt attention to the cyber threat. It demands we all pull together to face the reality of cyber intrusions into every aspect of our nation's business, our electric grid, our trade secrets, our water supply, and so much more. The stakes are great. This is about our national security--3 Directors of National Intelligence have said cyber attacks are the number 1 national security threat to our country. That is why we have to find a way to reach a consensus that allows us to responsibly legislate.

This bill is a very good start. There is a lot more we can and should do to protect our critical infrastructure, including promoting more sharing of private sector threat information. I will certainly keep looking for ways to work with my colleagues to provide this nation with the tools and resources we need to take on this threat.

Again, I thank Senator Thune for dedicating his time, talent, and energy to this legislation, and his fine staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the cybersecurity legislation Senator Thune and I introduce today is built upon several years of bipartisan hard work on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I am proud of that fact and proud of our work product.

I would like to sincerely thank Senator Thune for working closely with me on this legislation. Senator Thune appreciates the gravity of the cybersecurity threat to our national security and our economy--a genuine threat to the free flow of commerce. He has been laser focused in finding workable, private sector led solutions to mitigate this existential threat.

Our bill will go a long way to better secure our nation from ongoing cyber threats by having the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, a world-class, non-regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce--facilitate and support the development of voluntary, industry-led standards and best practices to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure and all businesses.

Our bill will give NIST the permanent authority it needs to continue the standards development process initiated by the President's Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity to ensure such efforts remain industry led and voluntary.

It will also make sure that the Federal Government supports cutting edge research, works to increase public awareness, and improves our workforce to better address cyber threats.

Our country's future economic success and security demands prompt attention to the cyber threat. It demands we all pull together to face the reality of cyber intrusions into every aspect of our nation's business, our electric grid, our trade secrets, our water supply, and so much more. The stakes are great. This is about our national security--3 Directors of National Intelligence have said cyber attacks are the number 1 national security threat to our country. That is why we have to find a way to reach a consensus that allows us to responsibly legislate.

This bill is a very good start. There is a lot more we can and should do to protect our critical infrastructure, including promoting more sharing of private sector threat information. I will certainly keep looking for ways to work with my colleagues to provide this nation with the tools and resources we need to take on this threat.

Again, I thank Senator Thune for dedicating his time, talent, and energy to this legislation, and his fine staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER: Mr. President, right now tens of thousands of Boy Scouts are gathering in the adventure-filled mountains of southern West Virginia for the 2013 National Scout Jamboree.

At the Summit Bechtel Reserve in Fayette County beginning on July 15, Scouts from across the country will challenge themselves--with biking, swimming, whitewater rafting, zip lining, and rock climbing. But they also will challenge themselves in ways new to the National Jamboree--by giving back to local communities.

For the first time ever, the Jamboree is engaged in a community service effort, one that has ignited in extraordinary ways in West Virginia. Over a 5-day period, up to 40,000 Scouts will work with groups in 9 counties on more than 350 projects--involving wellness, arts, education, infrastructure and beautification--totaling hundreds of thousands of service hours.

It is the biggest community service initiative of its kind in the country. It is an inspiration. And it speaks to the heart of West Virginia, a State where service is deep-rooted in our people; where ``neighbor helping neighbor'' is more than an idea--it is a way of life.

It also speaks to the heart of the Boy Scouts of America, which has a long tradition of community service and dedicates virtually countless hours of volunteer work year round. During the 2013 Jamboree, Scouts from ages 12 to 18 and from every State in the Union will be living out the Scout oath, ``To help other people at all times.''

Today I applaud everyone involved with the Reaching the Summit Community Service Initiative--the Boy Scouts who built this idea, the Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia for bringing together all the pieces to make it possible, the many organizations on the ground making a difference side-by-side with our Scouts, and the local communities supporting them. This initiative will make a tremendous difference in West Virginia communities, but it means more than that. It means that thousands of bright young Scouts will continue to experience the unparalleled feeling that comes with helping others.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Information Technology to Enhance Community Health Act of 2013, or the MITECH Act. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Franken and Senator Whitehouse in introducing this important piece of legislation which would help clinics and health care providers serving our Nation's most vulnerable citizens qualify for incentives to adopt meaningful use electronic health records for their patients.

In recent years, Congress has recognized the benefits of implementing electronic health records in our health care system. Countless experts have determined that electronic health records and other forms of health information technology improve health care quality, reduce medical errors, and lower overall medical costs. We have made unprecedented investments in electronic health records and have seen the benefits of these investments. Since its implementation, these programs have helped hundreds of thousands of providers and hospitals nationwide establish and effectively use electronic health records. However, eligibility requirements for these incentives payments have prevented some low-income providers from receiving them.

While electronic health records are a vital part of any quality health practice, they are in some ways even more important for clinics that serve low income, uninsured, and underinsured populations. These patients often seek services from any number of settings rather than returning to a set primary care provider. When the clinics that serve a particular population are able to establish and maintain electronic health records for their patients, it is far more likely that a patient's record will be available to their health care providers even if the patient is seeing a different provider in a different clinic. This allows an individual's health care providers to have access to a complete medical history, improving their ability to form a diagnosis, preventing unnecessary duplication of tests, and reducing costs for the patients and government. This measure also will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings and help to make sure patients are taking medications as prescribed and not ``doctor shopping'' for inappropriate medication.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, HITECH, Act created financial incentives called ``meaningful use'' incentives for both Medicare and Medicaid providers to adopt and meaningfully use implement and support electronic health records. While the current program has helped thousands of providers, practices, and hospitals nationwide, many safety net providers and clinics have not been able to benefit from the incentives. Given that Medicaid eligibility levels are so low in many states, it is difficult for many safety net providers to meet the 30 percent Medicaid patient threshold required to participate in the Medicaid electronic health records incentive program even though their patients are predominately low- income.

Congress addressed this problem only for practitioners working in Federally-qualified health centers and rural health centers by creating a 30 percent ``needy'' threshold in the HITECH Act for those providers. Unfortunately, the law failed to provide similar support for other providers serving low-income individuals.

The MITECH Act of 2013 seeks to eliminate these barriers, which prevent many safety net providers from qualifying for Medicaid electronic health record incentive payments. The bill will improve access to incentives for safety net providers that were left out of the HITECH Act's efforts. Additionally, the MITECH Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a methodology to allow these safety net clinics to be eligible for payments as an entity, similar to the current process that exists for hospitals.

Access to Medicaid electronic health records incentives will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings, help ensure compliance with prescription drugs, reduce unnecessary duplication of tests and will strengthen the safety net which provides essential care to so many Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will offer vital support to safety net providers.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Information Technology to Enhance Community Health Act of 2013, or the MITECH Act. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Franken and Senator Whitehouse in introducing this important piece of legislation which would help clinics and health care providers serving our Nation's most vulnerable citizens qualify for incentives to adopt meaningful use electronic health records for their patients.

In recent years, Congress has recognized the benefits of implementing electronic health records in our health care system. Countless experts have determined that electronic health records and other forms of health information technology improve health care quality, reduce medical errors, and lower overall medical costs. We have made unprecedented investments in electronic health records and have seen the benefits of these investments. Since its implementation, these programs have helped hundreds of thousands of providers and hospitals nationwide establish and effectively use electronic health records. However, eligibility requirements for these incentives payments have prevented some low-income providers from receiving them.

While electronic health records are a vital part of any quality health practice, they are in some ways even more important for clinics that serve low income, uninsured, and underinsured populations. These patients often seek services from any number of settings rather than returning to a set primary care provider. When the clinics that serve a particular population are able to establish and maintain electronic health records for their patients, it is far more likely that a patient's record will be available to their health care providers even if the patient is seeing a different provider in a different clinic. This allows an individual's health care providers to have access to a complete medical history, improving their ability to form a diagnosis, preventing unnecessary duplication of tests, and reducing costs for the patients and government. This measure also will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings and help to make sure patients are taking medications as prescribed and not ``doctor shopping'' for inappropriate medication.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, HITECH, Act created financial incentives called ``meaningful use'' incentives for both Medicare and Medicaid providers to adopt and meaningfully use implement and support electronic health records. While the current program has helped thousands of providers, practices, and hospitals nationwide, many safety net providers and clinics have not been able to benefit from the incentives. Given that Medicaid eligibility levels are so low in many states, it is difficult for many safety net providers to meet the 30 percent Medicaid patient threshold required to participate in the Medicaid electronic health records incentive program even though their patients are predominately low- income.

Congress addressed this problem only for practitioners working in Federally-qualified health centers and rural health centers by creating a 30 percent ``needy'' threshold in the HITECH Act for those providers. Unfortunately, the law failed to provide similar support for other providers serving low-income individuals.

The MITECH Act of 2013 seeks to eliminate these barriers, which prevent many safety net providers from qualifying for Medicaid electronic health record incentive payments. The bill will improve access to incentives for safety net providers that were left out of the HITECH Act's efforts. Additionally, the MITECH Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a methodology to allow these safety net clinics to be eligible for payments as an entity, similar to the current process that exists for hospitals.

Access to Medicaid electronic health records incentives will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings, help ensure compliance with prescription drugs, reduce unnecessary duplication of tests and will strengthen the safety net which provides essential care to so many Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will offer vital support to safety net providers.

Mr. President, I am chairman of the Commerce Committee. Mayor Anthony Foxx, who is absolutely superb, someone as a mayor, which I like, secondly as an expert on transportation, intermodal and otherwise. He understands the lay of the land and he has done it.

He was passed without a single dissenting vote of either party in the Commerce Committee. That is quite remarkable these days. He is a superb and qualified person who is very much needed to overlook our enormous transportation system which is in trouble. I hope my colleagues will support him.

Madam President, I would like to take a few moments with my friend Chairman Leahy to discuss the ongoing importance of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act's impact on lawfully residing noncitizen children and pregnant women. In that 2009 legislation, States were given the option to provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--benefits to these populations without first imposing a waiting period, and many did so as an investment in future generations. Throughout the debate on S. 744, some of my colleagues spent a considerable amount of time seeking to deprive lawfully present noncitizens of the protections of our vital safety net programs. I consider these efforts to be contrary to the value that we, as Americans, place on protecting the most vulnerable among us.

Chairman Leahy's leadership has been critical to the passage of this historic legislation in the Senate, and I thank him for being a strong voice in favor of protecting health care benefits for children and pregnant women. As you know, children's health has been one of my top priorities throughout my time in the Senate. Although the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate does limit certain noncitizens' eligibility for some Federal benefits, I am pleased the Senate chose to preserve States' rights to extend full Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program benefits to children and pregnant women granted legal status under the bill, particularly individuals and families granted Registered Provisional Immigrant--RPI, Blue Card, and V-visa status.

Commonly referred to as the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act--ICHIA, the success of this State option cannot be overstated. In the 4 years since its passage, 27 States and territories have decided to exercise the option to extend coverage to lawfully residing noncitizen children or pregnant women under Medicaid or CHIP without first imposing a waiting period: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Northern Mariana Islands, District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. This extension of coverage has literally been a lifeline to children and pregnant women who cannot afford to wait 5 years for immunizations, treatment of infections, prenatal care, and other necessary medical services.

Because the bipartisan immigration bill contains multiple provisions relating to certain noncitizens' eligibility for federal benefits, including those under means-tested programs, I would like to take some time to walk through how the Senate-passed immigration bill does not in any way limit a State's ability under ICHIA to extend coverage to children and pregnant women who receive RPI, Blue Card, or V-visa status.

Under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services'--CMS--guidance on the definition of ``lawfully residing'' in ICHIA, as long as a noncitizen child or pregnant woman has established residency in a State and is ``lawfully present'' in this country, he or she may qualify for benefits at the State's option. Children and pregnant women granted RPI, Blue Card, and V-visa status as part of the bipartisan immigration bill clearly meet this definition. The bill explicitly states that these categories of noncitizens are ``lawfully present'' in the United States for all purposes, except for specific benefits and obligations under the Affordable Care Act.

I will now turn it over to Chairman Leahy to provide some additional context from the Senate negotiations and the Judiciary Committee mark- up of S. 744.

Now, I would like to direct a question to my friend Chairman Leahy. Just to be clear, provisions in the bipartisan immigration reform bill do not eliminate a State's right to extend Medicaid and CHIP to any lawfully residing noncitizen child or pregnant woman, including those receiving RPI, Blue Card, or V-visa status. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman?

A closer look at the language in PRWORA and the Social Security Act confirms that the immigration reform bill does not eliminate the States' right to use the ICHIA option to provide coverage to lawfully residing children and pregnant women. The States' option to extend coverage to these individuals is not ``implemented'' in section 403 of PRWORA, the provision of law impacted by the immigration bill, but instead exists independent of PRWORA under sections 1903 and 2107 of the Social Security Act.

I would also like to point out to our colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--had a similar interpretation of the language in S. 744. CBO made an assumption that, under this language, Federal agencies would permit some individuals with RPI, Blue Card, or V-visa status to receive benefits from Federal means-tested programs, and specifically incorporated into its estimate of the bill the costs of providing Medicaid and CHIP coverage under ICHIA to children and pregnant women.

Moreover, by using the term ``waive'' in section 2323, the Senate is attempting to prohibit Federal officials from using their waiver authority under certain means-tested programs--such as those afforded to agencies in relation to demonstration projects--in a way that would result in noncompliance with PRWORA. This narrow prohibition on the use of waivers by Federal officials cannot be construed to prevent the continued implementation of an explicit, independent statutory right afforded to the states under ICHIA. The ICHIA option is not a waiver and remains available for States regardless of any action by an ``officer or employee of the Federal Government.''

I share the Chairman's disappointment that the Senate decided to add section 4417 to explicitly exclude students and tourists from ICHIA coverage, but I also agree with him that by not excluding other categories of lawfully residing noncitizens in section 4417, such as those granted RPI, Blue Card, or V-visa status, the Senate intended to preserve their benefits.

One of the hallmarks of our Nation is our willingness to protect the most vulnerable among us. People from all over the world want to be part of America because of our deeply-rooted respect for human dignity.

Although it is not perfect--few laws are--the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate this week lives up to those values in so many ways. It brings millions of hard working people out of the shadows, gives young students an opportunity to earn citizenship by furthering their education or serving in the military, reunites families who yearn to spend time with their loved ones, protects victims of domestic violence, and preserves health care coverage for noncitizen children and

pregnant women who earn legal status under the bill.

Immigrants are not under any illusions that they will qualify for lavish benefits under our Federal programs when they arrive on our shores. But under this bill, they at least know that when medical needs arise or a medical disaster strikes, the vast majority of noncitizen children and pregnant women will be covered.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this important day, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--PTSD--Awareness Day, we must pause to reflect on the

contributions of our Nation's veterans and recommit ourselves to a sacred promise that should never be forgotten: that they served this country, and this country will always care for them no matter the challenge.

This year, for the first time, based on a resolution that I cosponsored, the Senate has recognized June as PTSD awareness month. This is a good step in our effort to raise awareness of the invisible wounds our returning servicemembers far too often face. But today in particular, we must recognize that there is so much more to be done to fully heal those wounds, support families, and truly save lives.

I recently had a meeting, one I will never forget, with a number of immensely brave West Virginia veterans and their families who were willing to publicly share the struggles they face every day as a result of PTSD.

The Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense were there for our discussion in West Virginia, and I am glad they were.

We heard from wives who stand firmly by their husbands' sides as the horrors of war manifest at home in frightening ways. We heard from a father who hurts every day knowing the inner turmoil his son faces. And we heard from veterans who served their country without question, through multiple tours of duty, but have encountered nothing but stress and resistance when seeking the care they unquestionably earned.

They have faced stigma and a lack of understanding about their private struggles. And they have faced untenable--and, truthfully, life-threatening--delays in getting the strong mental health care they need.

This has been the case for two of the veterans who courageously joined our discussion--both of whom had been fighting for the benefits we owe them. I vowed to do everything I could for them, and I celebrate today knowing that with our help their benefits have been approved, and they now have some measure of peace.

But I do not rest--because there are thousands more veterans out there fighting and waiting for that good news.

Without the right care at the right time, things can start to spiral out of control for veterans with PTSD--financial hardship, marital stress, feelings of hopelessness. It is our job to deliver that care.

With the end of the Iraq war, and with tens of thousands of veterans coming home from Afghanistan, the VA and the DOD know the complexities of caring for returning servicemembers with conditions like PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury--TBI. But as the demand for mental health care increases, we must be prepared to swiftly and strongly answer the call for our newest veterans and those from every generation.

The VA recently announced that it has filled 1,600 mental health positions and the vacancies of more than 2,000 mental health clinical providers. This is an important step, and something I pushed for. But I believe we must do more to deliver the timely, consistent, individualized care our veterans need, including providing highly- skilled doctors and therapists and making sure that care is always available.

We must end the months-long delay that places veterans in limbo when transitioning their paperwork from active duty status at the DOD to the VA. And we can no longer expect veterans tormented by mental health issues to twist and turn through multiple levels of bureaucracy to get the care we owe them.

This is a difficult issue. But we can not let the complexity be an excuse for not delivering care for our veterans. No one is more deserving.

We know the system can work for our veterans when the VA, DOD, vet centers, counselors and support networks get it right. And we know the right kind of care when it is most needed can keep families together. It can also transform and save lives.

Near the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln made a solemn commitment to, ``bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle . . .'' We should be relentless in our efforts to uphold that pledge for each and every veteran and their loved ones-- today and every day

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I have the honor to chair the Commerce Committee and thus have enormous interest in who our next Commerce Secretary is going to be. I don't think the President could have picked anybody better.

I have known Penny Pritzker for 30 years. I have Chicago relations in my family too. She is a force of nature. That is the thing I want people to understand: She is a force of nature. Yes, she is wealthy. Yes, she is experienced in business. Yes, she is experienced in public service. She is a tiger of energy and purpose.

The Department of Commerce is probably the most complicated--I don't know compared to DOD, but I think it is the most complicated non-DOD agency. We have oceans, spectrum, aviation, trains. There are a thousand different areas, including all the oceans. It takes a real leader and it takes a tough person. We haven't had a tough enough person for a while. We had one, but then because of health reasons that person had to resign.

I cannot imagine a better--and I don't say these things often about nominees--I cannot imagine a more perfect person to run the Department of Commerce than Penny Pritzker. I hope my colleagues will vote for her overwhelmingly.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013. This legislation would protect millions of American consumers and businesses from unauthorized charges on their wireline telephone bills.

In 2011, the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, completed a year-long investigation into unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills, a practice commonly referred to as ``cramming.'' The investigation confirmed that third-party billing through wireline telephone bills had likely cost American consumers and businesses billions of dollars in unauthorized charges.

This legislation will put an end to cramming on wireline bills once and for all.

Unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills have plagued consumers for years. Cramming first emerged in the 1990s. Following the breakup of AT&T and the detariffing of ``billing and collection services'' by the Federal Communications Commission, telephone companies opened their billing and collection systems to third-party companies offering a variety of services, some of which were completely unrelated to telephone services.

For the first time, telephone numbers worked like credit card numbers. Consumers could purchase services with their telephone numbers and the charges for these services would later appear on their telephone bills.

There has been much debate over the extent to which telephone companies were required to allow third parties to place charges on customers' phone bills, but the last of any Federal obligations ended in 2007. Since that time, with the exception of a few state requirements, telephone companies have been free to allow, or not allow, whatever companies they choose to place third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills. The telephone companies chose to allow all sorts of companies to place charges for all sorts of services.

Throughout the 1990s, state and federal law enforcement saw a dramatic increase in complaints about unauthorized charges on telephone bills. In response, the Federal Communications Commission and the telephone industry created voluntary guidelines to combat cramming.

Throughout this same period, Congress also convened hearings on the issue, and each time, the telephone industry used these voluntary guidelines to argue that congressional action on cramming was not needed. Several bills were introduced, but none were adopted. Now we find ourselves, over a decade later, still discussing cramming. We cannot make the same mistake again.

In 2010, I opened the Committee's investigation into cramming to better understand the scope of the cramming problem. The investigation showed that over the past decade, cramming caused extensive financial harm to all types of wireline telephone customers, from residences and small businesses, to government agencies and large companies. All the while, the largest telephone companies were making large profits, likely generating over $1 billion in revenue by placing third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills.

It was shocking to learn that many third-party vendors that were placing charges on telephone bills were illegitimate and appeared to have been created solely to exploit a broken system. Consumers reported being charged $10 to $30 a month for so-called ``services'' that they never authorized. These included weekly e-mail messages with ``celebrity gossip'' and ``fashion tips,'' and others completely unrelated to wireline telephone services--such as ``online photo storage'' and ``electronic facsimile.'' In some of the most egregious examples, unauthorized charges had been added to the bills for telephone lines dedicated to fire alarms, security systems, bank vaults, elevators, and 911 services.

The Committee investigation also determined that many of the services being charged to consumers' telephone bills seemed to serve no legitimate purpose, frequently did not function properly, and were often available elsewhere for free.

The investigation involved a review of thousands of consumer complaints and interviews with more than 500 individuals and business owners whose

telephone bills included charges from third parties. Not one of these individuals or entities believed they had authorized the charges.

Further, many of these consumers complained that when they found unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, they were unable to get the money refunded, either from the carrier or from the third-party vendor. That is unacceptable.

In response to the Committee's investigation, the three largest wireline telephone companies--AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink--took positive steps to eliminate cramming on wireline telephone bills, including a decision to stop allowing the placement of most third-party charges on wireline telephone bills.

The Fair Telephone Billing Act will ensure that all wireline telephone companies and providers of interconnected VoIP services are required to take the same steps so that cramming on telephone bills never happens again.

In short, the bill would prohibit any local exchange carrier or provider of interconnected VoIP services from placing any third-party charge on a customer's bill, unless the charge is for a telephone- related service or a ``bundled'' service that is jointly marketed or sold with a company's telephone service.

Under the bill, a telephone company that places prohibited charges on a customer's bill is responsible for refunding to the customer any charge for services the customer did not authorize.

The bill also includes a narrow exception for two categories of third-party billing services: telephone-related services, such as collect calls; and ``bundled'' services, such as satellite television services offered together with phone service. This bill recognizes that such legitimate types of billing offer substantial benefit to consumers.

In recent years, increasing numbers of consumers have transitioned from traditional wireline telephone service to interconnected VoIP services and more are expected. Since consumers likely do not see a distinction between traditional wireline service and interconnected VoIP services, I believe these services need to be included. It is important to ensure that all telephone customers are offered the same protections from unauthorized charges.

It also has become clear that cramming now extends to wireless bills. When I introduced a similar bill last year, I included provisions that would have directed the Federal Communications Commission to create rules to prevent cramming on wireless telephone bills. Since that time, the Senate Commerce Committee has been examining cramming on wireless bills, and I believe this issue demands additional attention. I do not want to see in a few years that cramming has simply migrated from wireline to wireless. It is important that we examine the extent to which third-party wireless billing practices raise any issues distinct from third-party wireline billing practices, so we can best determine appropriate policies for protecting against consumer abuses in this context.

Cramming has likely already cost consumers and businesses billions. The Fair Telephone Billing Act would stop practices that Congress, regulators, and consumers agree are nothing more than a cover for fraud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013. This legislation would protect millions of American consumers and businesses from unauthorized charges on their wireline telephone bills.

In 2011, the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, completed a year-long investigation into unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills, a practice commonly referred to as ``cramming.'' The investigation confirmed that third-party billing through wireline telephone bills had likely cost American consumers and businesses billions of dollars in unauthorized charges.

This legislation will put an end to cramming on wireline bills once and for all.

Unauthorized third-party charges on telephone bills have plagued consumers for years. Cramming first emerged in the 1990s. Following the breakup of AT&T and the detariffing of ``billing and collection services'' by the Federal Communications Commission, telephone companies opened their billing and collection systems to third-party companies offering a variety of services, some of which were completely unrelated to telephone services.

For the first time, telephone numbers worked like credit card numbers. Consumers could purchase services with their telephone numbers and the charges for these services would later appear on their telephone bills.

There has been much debate over the extent to which telephone companies were required to allow third parties to place charges on customers' phone bills, but the last of any Federal obligations ended in 2007. Since that time, with the exception of a few state requirements, telephone companies have been free to allow, or not allow, whatever companies they choose to place third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills. The telephone companies chose to allow all sorts of companies to place charges for all sorts of services.

Throughout the 1990s, state and federal law enforcement saw a dramatic increase in complaints about unauthorized charges on telephone bills. In response, the Federal Communications Commission and the telephone industry created voluntary guidelines to combat cramming.

Throughout this same period, Congress also convened hearings on the issue, and each time, the telephone industry used these voluntary guidelines to argue that congressional action on cramming was not needed. Several bills were introduced, but none were adopted. Now we find ourselves, over a decade later, still discussing cramming. We cannot make the same mistake again.

In 2010, I opened the Committee's investigation into cramming to better understand the scope of the cramming problem. The investigation showed that over the past decade, cramming caused extensive financial harm to all types of wireline telephone customers, from residences and small businesses, to government agencies and large companies. All the while, the largest telephone companies were making large profits, likely generating over $1 billion in revenue by placing third-party charges on their customers' telephone bills.

It was shocking to learn that many third-party vendors that were placing charges on telephone bills were illegitimate and appeared to have been created solely to exploit a broken system. Consumers reported being charged $10 to $30 a month for so-called ``services'' that they never authorized. These included weekly e-mail messages with ``celebrity gossip'' and ``fashion tips,'' and others completely unrelated to wireline telephone services--such as ``online photo storage'' and ``electronic facsimile.'' In some of the most egregious examples, unauthorized charges had been added to the bills for telephone lines dedicated to fire alarms, security systems, bank vaults, elevators, and 911 services.

The Committee investigation also determined that many of the services being charged to consumers' telephone bills seemed to serve no legitimate purpose, frequently did not function properly, and were often available elsewhere for free.

The investigation involved a review of thousands of consumer complaints and interviews with more than 500 individuals and business owners whose

telephone bills included charges from third parties. Not one of these individuals or entities believed they had authorized the charges.

Further, many of these consumers complained that when they found unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, they were unable to get the money refunded, either from the carrier or from the third-party vendor. That is unacceptable.

In response to the Committee's investigation, the three largest wireline telephone companies--AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink--took positive steps to eliminate cramming on wireline telephone bills, including a decision to stop allowing the placement of most third-party charges on wireline telephone bills.

The Fair Telephone Billing Act will ensure that all wireline telephone companies and providers of interconnected VoIP services are required to take the same steps so that cramming on telephone bills never happens again.

In short, the bill would prohibit any local exchange carrier or provider of interconnected VoIP services from placing any third-party charge on a customer's bill, unless the charge is for a telephone- related service or a ``bundled'' service that is jointly marketed or sold with a company's telephone service.

Under the bill, a telephone company that places prohibited charges on a customer's bill is responsible for refunding to the customer any charge for services the customer did not authorize.

The bill also includes a narrow exception for two categories of third-party billing services: telephone-related services, such as collect calls; and ``bundled'' services, such as satellite television services offered together with phone service. This bill recognizes that such legitimate types of billing offer substantial benefit to consumers.

In recent years, increasing numbers of consumers have transitioned from traditional wireline telephone service to interconnected VoIP services and more are expected. Since consumers likely do not see a distinction between traditional wireline service and interconnected VoIP services, I believe these services need to be included. It is important to ensure that all telephone customers are offered the same protections from unauthorized charges.

It also has become clear that cramming now extends to wireless bills. When I introduced a similar bill last year, I included provisions that would have directed the Federal Communications Commission to create rules to prevent cramming on wireless telephone bills. Since that time, the Senate Commerce Committee has been examining cramming on wireless bills, and I believe this issue demands additional attention. I do not want to see in a few years that cramming has simply migrated from wireline to wireless. It is important that we examine the extent to which third-party wireless billing practices raise any issues distinct from third-party wireline billing practices, so we can best determine appropriate policies for protecting against consumer abuses in this context.

Cramming has likely already cost consumers and businesses billions. The Fair Telephone Billing Act would stop practices that Congress, regulators, and consumers agree are nothing more than a cover for fraud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I was proud to join Senator Baucus from Montana in introducing legislation on Tuesday to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy at the Department of Education. Senator Baucus has been a tireless advocate for many issues affecting rural States like Montana and West Virginia, and I have been proud to work with him on several rural issues over the years. Notably, Senator Baucus and I are fortunate to have terrific partners in our work to improve rural education, including a diverse array of organizations that support this bill.

Nearly one quarter of the students in America attend rural schools and the share of students in rural schools is increasing and more than half of the schools in West Virginia are in rural areas. This legislation will support these schools because it creates an Office in the Department of Education to make sure that Federal programs related to education are working for students in schools in rural areas.

Schools in rural communities face special challenges but, they also have unique capabilities. Many of them continue to face shrinking local tax bases, difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers and principals, limited access to advanced courses, and proportionally higher transportation costs. At the same time, while smaller schools lack economies of scale, they may benefit from this small size and closeness to their communities. Parental involvement and support is typically high, and the potential for innovation is great.

I am very proud of the communities in West Virginia and how they come together, often on their own time and with their own resources, to improve and support their local schools. Schools in West Virginia are also leaders in the use of distance learning given the geographical obstacles of our mountainous State. But, we need to make sure rural schools, including many in West Virginia, have the tools to succeed and access to the same opportunities that many schools in urban areas have, including health care, technology, and education.

The Office of Rural Education Policy is modeled after the successful Office of Rural Health Policy at the Department of Health and Human Services, which Congress established in 1987. The Office will be led by a director charged with coordinating the activities of the Department of Education concerning rural education. It will establish and maintain a clearinghouse for issues faced by rural schools, such as teacher and principal recruitment and retention; partnerships with community-based organizations; and financing of rural schools.

The office will identify innovative research and demonstration projects on rural schools, and recommend research to bridge any gaps. It will issue an annual report on the condition of rural education, and an analysis of the impact on rural education from proposed regulations and other activities will be made public.

Rural schools have been a part of our national fabric since its very beginning. These students deserve the attention from the Department of Education this legislation will provide. It has been said that education in rural America is ``too large to be ignored but too small and diverse to be highly visible.'' We need to establish this Office so that education in these communities can thrive and so that its successes are more visible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, as parents, we can see the scrapes and cuts our children get--the unavoidable byproducts of growing up. A little bit of ointment and some bandages usually do the trick. But what of the injuries we can't see? The ones we can't readily tell, no matter how well we know our kids.

Each year, as many as 3.8 million Americans suffer sports- and recreation-related brain injuries. Some are horrific, deadly, and visible to the naked eye. But the vast majority are concussions caused by an awkward hit, a freak fall, or a routine blow to the head on the field. They cannot be seen, but the damage is there in the very place that houses our minds and for our children their future.

Most susceptible are our young athletes, whose bodies and brains are still growing, with each concussion increasing the likelihood of suffering yet another. This past school year alone, more than 300,000 of our high school athletes were diagnosed with concussions. Since 2005, over 1.3 million concussions have been diagnosed among high school athletes in just the top nine most common sports. However, researchers say these figures likely underestimate--vastly--the true extent of the epidemic because so many head injuries go unreported or ignored. And when a concussion occurs, few ever lose consciousness, and the telltale signs can seem minor in the immediate aftermath. It is only later on, perhaps the next day or weeks thereafter, when the consequences become clearer and more alarming.

The urgency to act only grows the more we learn about brain injuries. Concussions aren't minor bumps and dings. They aren't something kids should just ``play through,'' as some coaches advise. They are injuries to the brain that animate our very existence, and they can impair their cognitive abilities just when our children need a good head on their shoulders. And we, as a society, have already seen the potential tragedies that repeated concussions can bring to athletes--their limbs paralyzed or their lives cut short by the inner demons the injuries eventually bear.

The role of sports, and all of its innate benefits, is an important part of growing up in America. They teach us lessons that can't be taught in the classroom, they make us healthier, and they show us the value of teamwork, grit, and responsibility. But the pervasiveness of concussions and their effects, particularly among children, should no longer be disregarded. And, as policymakers and parents, we must ensure that we are doing everything we can to learn more and safeguard our kids and athletes.

Senator Tom Udall and I are proud to introduce the Youth Sports Concussion Act, which will help ensure that protective sports equipment take heed of the latest science and are not sold based on false or deceptive premises.

As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, we have already revealed and investigated bad actors who peddle products with false safety claims to parents of young athletes. Under this legislation, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to go after them with greater force and ensure this practice comes to an end.

This bill would also direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to review a forthcoming study from the National Academies of Science on youth concussions. Based on the study's recommendations, the CPSC would then be permitted to consider new safety standards for sports equipment if manufacturers fail to come up with their own.

The legislation--I am happy to say--has the strong support of major sports leagues and players associations. Pediatricians, scientists, and consumer groups have endorsed it, too. Our athletes, whether peewee or professional, whether under the lights or on the pitch, inspire and bring Americans together, and their efforts to help pass this sensible bill will surely garner the appreciation of present and future athletes to come.

This fall, some 3 million children under the age of 14 will don their pads and snap on their helmets to play tackle football. For a sport so important--and for lives so precious--to our country, let us make sure we act as soon as we can. The lessons imparted and the fitness gained on the field are moot without the health of our children.