Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I would like to speak today about a remarkable constituent of mine, Mr. Fredrick Mayer. His story is one of truly incredible bravery, and Mr. Mayer is one of the great unsung heroes of World War II. His selfless patriotism and unique service to the United States merit our recognition. Born to a Jewish family in Germany, Mr. Mayer was forced to flee the rise of nazism in his home country, and as a young man he immigrated to the United States with his family. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Mayer enlisted in the U.S. Army. There, his talents were quickly recognized, and Mr. Mayer was soon recruited into the Office of Strategic Services, OSS--a predecessor to the CIA. Once in the OSS, Mr. Mayer was presented with an unimaginably dangerous mission--to be clandestinely sent back into Nazi territory to collect critical military intelligence from behind enemy lines. Mr. Mayer accepted his mission with full knowledge that as a Jewish- American spy, he would almost surely be killed if he was captured. Having escaped Nazi Germany only years earlier, he also accepted this mission with a unique appreciation for the injustices that were being done by Nazi forces and with a deep sense of duty to help his new home country--the United States--put an end to those injustices. What happened next is perhaps best told in the words of Mr. Mayer's commanding officer in a May 31, 1945, written assessment of Mr. Mayer's performance: Technical Sergeant Mayer parachuted into enemy occupied territory and remained there for three months, gathering secret intelligence and rallying Austrian resistance elements. During this period Technical Sergeant Mayer exhibited not only the highest degree of courage under constant risk of his life, but remarkable qualities of leadership and organization which made it possible for him to contact and win the support of anti-Nazi elements of all classes and walks of life, and eventually to arrange the surrender of Innsbruck to American troops. Ultimately, Mr. Mayer spent nearly 3 months living behind enemy lines, often wearing a German officer's uniform and using forged papers to move openly without capture. In that guise, Mr. Mayer covertly organized a network of anti-Nazi Austrians and clandestinely collected vital intelligence that was then relayed by his radio operator to OSS headquarters in Italy. According to now unclassified documents, Mr. Mayer collected and relayed information on a wide array of critical subjects--important Nazi war factories, schedules relating to the movement of Nazi troops and material to and from the battlefront, the status of Nazi defenses at key tunnels, bridges, and highway bottlenecks, and the whereabouts of Mussolini, Daladier, and Hitler. In one case, intelligence gathered by Mr. Mayer about the assembly and schedules of 26 military trains that were being sent to the Italian front led to the trains' destruction and blocked the Brenner Pass completely until well after the war ended. After months of successful operations, Mr. Mayer was betrayed by one of his contacts. He was then arrested by the Gestapo and brutally tortured while in captivity. Nevertheless, throughout the harsh interrogations, Mr. Mayer refused to give up the location of his radio operator. As a prisoner, Mr. Mayer was able to use his language skills and quick thinking to convince his captors to grant him a meeting with senior Nazi officers, and as American troops approached, he helped persuade the Nazi commanders to surrender Innsbruck--likely preventing a final battle with U.S. forces that would have resulted in even greater casualties. In the end, Mr. Mayer led what is now regarded as one of the most successful OSS covert operations of World War II--Operation GREENUP. His bravery, remarkable in any context, is even more noteworthy given his willingness to selflessly return to enemy territory, not far from the childhood home he was forced to flee. He did this to help win the war, and he did this in service to the United States. Mr. Mayer is now 92 years old and lives in Charles Town, WV. He is a very humble man who does not brag about his wartime accomplishments. Thankfully, that deep humility does not mean that his amazing story has been lost, and I am honored to recognize Fred's service here today.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss mine safety, a critical issue to my state and the tens of thousands of miners across the Nation. Earlier this month we observed the third anniversary of the Upper Big Branch mine disaster which killed twenty nine of our Nation's miners. That disaster, the most deadly in decades, shocked the country and made us realize that we must aggressively and continually seek to make mining safer and we cannot rest--because no number of deaths or accidents is acceptable. In the past 3 years we have seen some positive steps in our Nation's mine safety efforts. As part of the Dodd-Frank bill we required publicly-traded mining companies to report safety information to their shareholders through their public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress provided additional funds, $22 million, for MSHA and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission to reduce the appeals backlog, enforce mine safety laws and investigate the Upper Big Branch Disaster. MSHA has also pursued increased enforcement actions through their impact inspections that target violations at unsafe mines with poor compliance history or specific safety concerns. As of March 2013, the Administration had conducted 579 impact inspections, resulting in 10,036 citations, 946 orders, and 43 safeguards. The administration has finalized rules to improve the broken ``Pattern of Violations'' process to better pursue repeat offenders. While we have had these improvements we also know that 97 miners have died on the job since this tragedy. That is 97 new grieving families. That is unacceptable to me, and I think to most people. So it is clear that we must do more. That is why today I am reintroducing my comprehensive mine safety legislation the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2013. We do incredibly important things in this bill including. We give MSHA expanded authority to subpoena documents and testimony. Currently, MSHA does not have the authority to subpoena documents or testimony from operators outside the context of a formal, public hearing. MSHA should have this authority in the context of investigations and inspections as well as public hearings. We provide for an independent investigation of the most serious accidents. The bill creates an independent panel, comprised of a team of independent experts, to investigate the actions of both the operator and MSHA for serious accidents, including any accident involving three or more deaths. We strengthen whistleblower protections for miners who speak out about unsafe conditions. This bill will require one hour annually of ``miner's rights training'' to inform workers of the law's protections, give miners an express right to refuse unsafe work, expand the time limit for filing a complaint about retaliation from 60 to 180 days, and authorize punitive damages and criminal penalties for retaliation against workers who raise safety concerns. We increase maximum penalties. Currently, criminal violations of mine safety laws are a misdemeanor for a first offense. To provide a strong deterrent for such serious misconduct, the penalties for knowing violations of safety standards will be raised to the felony level, including providing felony penalties for miners, operators, and government officials who knowingly provide advance notice of inspections. We also increase civil penalties for making unsafe ventilation changes and violating mandatory health or safety standards for rock dusting or failing to keep the records required. These are areas of particular concern that were highlighted by investigations conducted by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Governor's Independent Investigation. We limit Miners' Exposure to Black Lung Disease. This debilitating disease is on the rise among a new generation of coal miners. Specifically, the provision would require that MSHA issue a rule within 6 months, a rule that is long overdue, to lower exposure levels to respirable dust which would provide the maximum feasible protection that is achievable through environmental controls. It would also require that MSHA reexamine the incidence of black lung disease every 5 years and, unless there is a decline in black lung, update the regulations again. More than 70 percent of the victims tested at Upper Big Branch were determined to have signs of black lung disease. We improve Federal and State Coordination to Combat Safety Violations. The Governor's Independent Investigation Panel recommended that Federal and State agencies immediately work together to address safety problems at mines right after they are found out, and this provision would strongly encourage such actions. I want to be very clear that I will not give up on fighting for the safety and health of our Nation's miners. Health and safety are issues that people shouldn't have to compromise on. I will continue this fight for West Virginia's miners and it is my hope that more of my colleagues will join me in these efforts.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss mine safety, a critical issue to my state and the tens of thousands of miners across the Nation. Earlier this month we observed the third anniversary of the Upper Big Branch mine disaster which killed twenty nine of our Nation's miners. That disaster, the most deadly in decades, shocked the country and made us realize that we must aggressively and continually seek to make mining safer and we cannot rest--because no number of deaths or accidents is acceptable. In the past 3 years we have seen some positive steps in our Nation's mine safety efforts. As part of the Dodd-Frank bill we required publicly-traded mining companies to report safety information to their shareholders through their public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress provided additional funds, $22 million, for MSHA and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission to reduce the appeals backlog, enforce mine safety laws and investigate the Upper Big Branch Disaster. MSHA has also pursued increased enforcement actions through their impact inspections that target violations at unsafe mines with poor compliance history or specific safety concerns. As of March 2013, the Administration had conducted 579 impact inspections, resulting in 10,036 citations, 946 orders, and 43 safeguards. The administration has finalized rules to improve the broken ``Pattern of Violations'' process to better pursue repeat offenders. While we have had these improvements we also know that 97 miners have died on the job since this tragedy. That is 97 new grieving families. That is unacceptable to me, and I think to most people. So it is clear that we must do more. That is why today I am reintroducing my comprehensive mine safety legislation the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2013. We do incredibly important things in this bill including. We give MSHA expanded authority to subpoena documents and testimony. Currently, MSHA does not have the authority to subpoena documents or testimony from operators outside the context of a formal, public hearing. MSHA should have this authority in the context of investigations and inspections as well as public hearings. We provide for an independent investigation of the most serious accidents. The bill creates an independent panel, comprised of a team of independent experts, to investigate the actions of both the operator and MSHA for serious accidents, including any accident involving three or more deaths. We strengthen whistleblower protections for miners who speak out about unsafe conditions. This bill will require one hour annually of ``miner's rights training'' to inform workers of the law's protections, give miners an express right to refuse unsafe work, expand the time limit for filing a complaint about retaliation from 60 to 180 days, and authorize punitive damages and criminal penalties for retaliation against workers who raise safety concerns. We increase maximum penalties. Currently, criminal violations of mine safety laws are a misdemeanor for a first offense. To provide a strong deterrent for such serious misconduct, the penalties for knowing violations of safety standards will be raised to the felony level, including providing felony penalties for miners, operators, and government officials who knowingly provide advance notice of inspections. We also increase civil penalties for making unsafe ventilation changes and violating mandatory health or safety standards for rock dusting or failing to keep the records required. These are areas of particular concern that were highlighted by investigations conducted by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Governor's Independent Investigation. We limit Miners' Exposure to Black Lung Disease. This debilitating disease is on the rise among a new generation of coal miners. Specifically, the provision would require that MSHA issue a rule within 6 months, a rule that is long overdue, to lower exposure levels to respirable dust which would provide the maximum feasible protection that is achievable through environmental controls. It would also require that MSHA reexamine the incidence of black lung disease every 5 years and, unless there is a decline in black lung, update the regulations again. More than 70 percent of the victims tested at Upper Big Branch were determined to have signs of black lung disease. We improve Federal and State Coordination to Combat Safety Violations. The Governor's Independent Investigation Panel recommended that Federal and State agencies immediately work together to address safety problems at mines right after they are found out, and this provision would strongly encourage such actions. I want to be very clear that I will not give up on fighting for the safety and health of our Nation's miners. Health and safety are issues that people shouldn't have to compromise on. I will continue this fight for West Virginia's miners and it is my hope that more of my colleagues will join me in these efforts.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Molly Crawford, who is on detail to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, from the Federal Trade Commission, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the distinguished career of Ann Lordeman, who is retiring after 22 years of service at the Congressional Research Service, CRS. In her time at CRS, Ann has been lead analyst on employment and training programs, national and community service programs, and programs serving students with disabilities such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Her work has contributed in important ways to numerous Federal policies in these areas and benefited many American families, workers, and schoolchildren. Ann was deeply involved in deliberations leading to the passage of the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, of 1998 and in deliberations leading to the reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act, NCSA, of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act, DVSA, of 1973. In recent years, she has focused heavily on issues related to the financing, implementation, and administration of IDEA. In all of these policy areas, Ann has provided technical expertise and critical legislative support to congressional committees, Members, and their staffs. Throughout her career Ann has embraced standards of authoritativeness, objectivity, and confidentiality, which are essential to the success of CRS analysts. She is a trusted resource who has supported the development and refinement of legislative proposals through data analysis, strong understanding of the policy areas she works in, and the anticipation of potential consequences associated with policy options. Ann has also always exhibited a strong service- orientation; while working on national issues, Ann is never too busy to support congressional offices trying to resolve problems for families seeking appropriate educational services and accommodations for their children or to identify resources available for communities to help dislocated workers. She has helped the citizens of West Virginia in this manner with great regularity over her years of service. Within CRS, Ann is renowned for her generosity and strong inclination to mentor and support the growth of new analysts and to work collaboratively with colleagues for the benefit of her congressional clients. Her many career achievements warrant recognition, and it is my great pleasure to commend her on her 22 years of outstanding public service at CRS.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have an important opportunity this week, or before, to help small and local businesses all across our country. We have an opportunity to help the kinds of local businesses that make our small towns and rural States so warm and inviting. These businesses attract tourists because of the nature of their smallness. Everything is not big. Everything that is big is not necessarily friendly. Small businesses are almost always friendly. Today these same small and local businesses are competing on a very unfair playing field. This is an issue I have cared about ever since the Internet was created. I felt strongly about it then and I feel strongly about it now--except even more so. For over 20 years States have been unable to enforce their own sales tax laws on sales by out-of-State catalog and online sellers due to something I am familiar with only because of the specificity of the issue to the 1992 Supreme Court decision Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. Sales tax is not collected for most Internet transactions, so consumers know they can benefit from a 5- to 10-percent discount online, and they know that before they go into a store. In fact, something that is even more discouraging--because I have made a point of watching it--also takes place, and that is what cell phones can do for shoppers. I have seen shoppers in various small shops, such as craft shops, tool shops, and other various kinds of Main Street shops, come in and look at the merchandise. They pick over the merchandise, compare it, decide what they like, and take a picture of it. While still in that small store, they go online and buy it, thus avoiding having to pay a sales tax. They never have to leave the store--or they can. They can just look at their cell phone when they get home and then buy it if they want to. This strikes me as profoundly unfair, so profoundly unfair that it is one of the easiest issues I think I have ever dealt with since I came to the Senate some time ago. It is profoundly unfair to traditional shops and small businesses to end up serving as the display case for consumers who see the product in person but buy it online to avoid paying sales tax--or maybe they aren't doing it deliberately to avoid paying sales tax. If they are well versed in the ways of life, they can do that because they know they will get a nice little discount. On the other hand, it is just a habit because States don't have the money-- particularly small States such as mine--they don't have the money to possibly collect that or go after that. I feel very strongly about sales taxes. For the most part sales taxes are used, about 70 percent of them are used in my State for boards of education, public education. I think that is probably true in most States. But, frankly, I just don't know. It is true in my State, so I care about it. My State, because of what I have just described--simply buying online and not having to pay a sales tax or anything--my State lost about $103 million last year alone. That is a pretty big chunk of our budget. That sounds silly to California. On the other hand, California loses about $4 trillion-plus because of this, and this simple bill would correct that situation and allow them to be able to have the software to do all this. In West Virginia we are fighting to keep our small towns vibrant, and I think the good Presiding Officer understands what I mean by that. His State has a couple of big cities, but it has a lot of small towns. My daughter lives in one. Those small towns are the heart and soul--towns such as Newtown are the heart and soul of America, with good people, honest people, doing honest commerce. We need local retailers to keep our small towns vibrant. I believe we can have both a vibrant Main Street economy and e-commerce businesses together, but we have to have them both. Let's be honest. Allowing States to collect sales tax for online purchases is not going to stop the growth of e-commerce. My Commerce Committee held a hearing on this issue a couple of years ago, and we had a bunch of folks who made all kinds of claims, but then a lot more folks who said this isn't fair. It is not a fair way to do business. Today's technology, with the tremendous advances made in recent years, makes tax collection simple, makes it cheap, makes it reliable. In many ways, the Internet is the perfect environment to collect sales taxes because it can be automated. If Congress does nothing, we will end up with States forced to raise income or property taxes to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. That doesn't seem right or fair to me, and I feel strongly about it. I know the Congress has worked on this issue for a long time. I recall Senator Enzi's original bill on this issue was referred to the Commerce Committee. Senators Enzi, Durbin, and Alexander are, from my point of view, to be enormously commended for their commitment on this issue, keeping up the good fight. I have always thought it was the right idea, and I cosponsored the very first bill just as I am cosponsoring this current bill. When Senator Enzi first introduced this bill, it was not a popular idea. Over time more people have come to understand that this is an issue of basic fairness--really just that word, ``fairness''--to make it possible to allow people to compete on a correct basis, and it is terribly critical to our States' fiscal health. So that is why I stand here excited to see a growing bipartisan consensus in this Chamber to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act. I commend its authors. By a vote of 75 to 24, the Senate recently supported the inclusion of this bill in the budget resolution. I hope we can finish the bill soon and level the playing field once and for all. I wish to close by saying this bill is ultimately about fairness. It would allow small and local businesses--the kind that dot every town all across the United States--a chance to play on a level playing field and, in fact, in some cases a chance to operate, to be in business. By passing this bill in the next several days, we can restore fairness to small and local businesses. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2013. I am proud to be joined by my long- time partner in this effort, Senator Bill Nelson, as well as my colleagues Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senate Barbara Boxer of California, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, Senator Angus King of Maine, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, in introducing this important piece of legislation. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices, just the way any private insurance plan would use its purchasing power to lower prices. That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid as well as other low-income Medicare beneficiaries. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $141.2 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the President's framework for deficit reduction and the President's budget for fiscal year 2014. Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense. The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow faster than inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part D. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will protect Medicare for seniors, and end a giveaway to drug companies that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2013. I am proud to be joined by my long- time partner in this effort, Senator Bill Nelson, as well as my colleagues Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senate Barbara Boxer of California, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, Senator Angus King of Maine, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, in introducing this important piece of legislation. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices, just the way any private insurance plan would use its purchasing power to lower prices. That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid as well as other low-income Medicare beneficiaries. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $141.2 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the President's framework for deficit reduction and the President's budget for fiscal year 2014. Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense. The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow faster than inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part D. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will protect Medicare for seniors, and end a giveaway to drug companies that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in West Virginia, we revere our miners--the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to provide for their families and bring light and heat to millions. Their grit, their courage and their determination are inspirational to each of us. The work they do every day provides nearly half of our Nation with power and it helps underpin the economy of the State we call home. For their hard work in these grueling jobs mineworkers receive promised pensions and lifetime health benefits. Health care for all retirees is important. But, in many cases, it is even more so for retired miners, who have stared the possibility of injury or illness in the face every day. Unfortunately, today there are looming threats to the pensions of more than 100,000 mineworkers and to the healthcare benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents. The miners' pension fund is on the road to insolvency. It has been hit by the perfect storm--the recent financial crisis, the smaller number of active mineworkers who provide the funding base for the pension plan, and the large number of ``orphans'' who receive their pensions under the plan. These ``orphans'' are retired mineworkers for whom a company no longer makes contributions to the pension fund, typically because the company is out of business. Additionally, the bankruptcy of one coal company is threatening the health benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents, the vast majority of whom never worked for the company that is actually going bankrupt. So despite the fact that they were promised lifetime healthcare benefits by their employers when they gave their lives to this industry doing the hardest work imaginable under that sacred pledge they are now losing those benefits because a company they never worked for is going bankrupt. That is unfair and unjust. That is why today I am introducing the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation protects pensions for more than 100,000 mineworkers by taking excess funds from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program and transferring that money to the miners' 1974 pension plan. The Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act also would protect retiree health benefits by making any retiree who loses benefits following the bankruptcy or insolvency of his or her employer eligible for the health benefits provided by the COAL Act. And, importantly this legislation would hold employers accountable for the commitments they make to their workers. That is just basic fairness. Supporting our Nation's miners is not a new issue for our country and it is not a new fight of mine. Dating back to President Harry Truman, the Federal Government has assumed a responsibility to our mineworkers. In 1992, I was deeply proud to work on the passage of the COAL Act, through which we recommitted to our miners that a promise made would be a promise kept. That bill allowed the transfer of interest accruing to the unappropriated balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to be used to provide health care for a large number of orphaned miners and their widows. This helped avert a nationwide coal strike and it preserved health benefits for 200,000 retired miners and their widows. This Federal commitment was renewed in the 2006 amendments to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program that again protected the healthcare plans of miners from insolvency. Now, 20 years after passing the COAL Act, I am again renewing my commitment to the hardest working people I have ever known with the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. We must preserve the solvency of our miners' pension plans and protect the healthcare benefits they need, earned and were rightfully promised. This is about human decency, it is about doing what is right, and it is about having the backs of those who have ours deep underground.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in West Virginia, we revere our miners--the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to provide for their families and bring light and heat to millions. Their grit, their courage and their determination are inspirational to each of us. The work they do every day provides nearly half of our Nation with power and it helps underpin the economy of the State we call home. For their hard work in these grueling jobs mineworkers receive promised pensions and lifetime health benefits. Health care for all retirees is important. But, in many cases, it is even more so for retired miners, who have stared the possibility of injury or illness in the face every day. Unfortunately, today there are looming threats to the pensions of more than 100,000 mineworkers and to the healthcare benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents. The miners' pension fund is on the road to insolvency. It has been hit by the perfect storm--the recent financial crisis, the smaller number of active mineworkers who provide the funding base for the pension plan, and the large number of ``orphans'' who receive their pensions under the plan. These ``orphans'' are retired mineworkers for whom a company no longer makes contributions to the pension fund, typically because the company is out of business. Additionally, the bankruptcy of one coal company is threatening the health benefits of nearly 12,000 miners and their dependents, the vast majority of whom never worked for the company that is actually going bankrupt. So despite the fact that they were promised lifetime healthcare benefits by their employers when they gave their lives to this industry doing the hardest work imaginable under that sacred pledge they are now losing those benefits because a company they never worked for is going bankrupt. That is unfair and unjust. That is why today I am introducing the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation protects pensions for more than 100,000 mineworkers by taking excess funds from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program and transferring that money to the miners' 1974 pension plan. The Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act also would protect retiree health benefits by making any retiree who loses benefits following the bankruptcy or insolvency of his or her employer eligible for the health benefits provided by the COAL Act. And, importantly this legislation would hold employers accountable for the commitments they make to their workers. That is just basic fairness. Supporting our Nation's miners is not a new issue for our country and it is not a new fight of mine. Dating back to President Harry Truman, the Federal Government has assumed a responsibility to our mineworkers. In 1992, I was deeply proud to work on the passage of the COAL Act, through which we recommitted to our miners that a promise made would be a promise kept. That bill allowed the transfer of interest accruing to the unappropriated balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to be used to provide health care for a large number of orphaned miners and their widows. This helped avert a nationwide coal strike and it preserved health benefits for 200,000 retired miners and their widows. This Federal commitment was renewed in the 2006 amendments to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program that again protected the healthcare plans of miners from insolvency. Now, 20 years after passing the COAL Act, I am again renewing my commitment to the hardest working people I have ever known with the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. We must preserve the solvency of our miners' pension plans and protect the healthcare benefits they need, earned and were rightfully promised. This is about human decency, it is about doing what is right, and it is about having the backs of those who have ours deep underground.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleagues Senators, Crapo, Wyden, and Moran in introducing the Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2013, legislation to extend for 3 years the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax credit. In the 112th Congress, I introduced a 6-year extension of this credit. Despite the often contentious atmosphere of the 112th Congress, during which my colleagues found little they could agree on, the short line rail credit was a bipartisan success story, with my legislation attracting more than 50 bipartisan cosponsors. ``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by large, trans-continental railroads. Supporting small railroads allows the communities surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and create jobs. The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in communities across America. This credit has real impact for the people of my state. West Virginia is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the country. Since the credit was enacted, it is estimated 750,000 railroad ties have been purchased above what would have otherwise been purchased with no incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly into jobs. This credit does not create just West Virginia jobs though. The ties, spikes, and rail this credit helps fund are almost entirely American made. Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation and improvements. Unfortunately, it is now scheduled to expire at the end of 2013. We were unable to enact a full 6-year extension of this important tax credit last Congress, but I was pleased that this credit was extended through the end of 2013 as part of the December 31st fiscal cliff deal. This Congress I want to do more. This credit, and the short line railroads that serve all of our constituents, deserve a meaningful extension. If this credit is allowed to expire at the end of the year, private-sector investments in infrastructure in our communities will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars. This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2016, providing the important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private- sector transportation infrastructure investment. Over 50 members of this body sponsored legislation in the last Congress extending this credit and I hope there will be similar support again this year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2013. This bill is a critical step towards furthering consumer privacy. It empowers Americans to control their personal information online and provides them with the ability to prevent online companies from collecting and using that information for profit. Do-not-track is a simple concept. It allows consumers, with a simple click of the mouse, to tell every company that participates in the vast online ecosystem, ``Do not collect information about me. I care about my privacy. My personal information is not for sale. And I do not want my information used in ways I do not expect or approve.'' Under this bill, online companies would have to honor that user declaration or face penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, or State Attorneys General. This bill is necessary because the privacy of Americans is increasingly under assault as more and more of their daily lives are conducted online. Whether it is a person at home searching for a new job or home, a parent researching her sick child's symptoms and treatments using a health application, or a teenager using her smartphone while riding the subway, online companies are collecting massive amounts of information, often without consumers' knowledge or consent. A vast array of companies that consumers have never heard of are surreptitiously collecting this information in numerous ways: third-party advertising networks place ``cookies'' on computer web- browsers to track the websites that consumers have visited; analytic and marketing companies identify individual computers by recognizing the unique configuration, or ``fingerprint,'' of web-browsers; and software applications installed on mobile devices, colloquially known as ``apps,'' collect, use, and share information about consumers' precise locations, contact lists, photographs, and other personal matters. All of this information can be combined and stored on computer servers around the world and used for a variety of purposes, ranging from website analytics to online behavioral advertising to the creation of comprehensive dossiers by data brokers that build and sell personal profiles about hundreds of millions of individual Americans. My bill would empower consumers, if they so choose, to stem the tide. It would give them the means to prohibit the collection of their information from the start. Consumers would be able to tell companies collecting their personal information that they want those collection practices to stop. At the same time, the bill would preserve the ability of those online companies to conduct their business and deliver the content and services that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. The bill would grant the FTC rulemaking authority to use its expertise to protect the privacy interests of consumers while addressing the legitimate needs of industry. The key to this bill is its simplicity. For over a decade in the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, we have tried to determine how online companies can provide clear and conspicuous notice to consumers about their information practices and--once this notice has been given--further determine how consumers can either opt-in or opt- out of those information collection practices. Yet today, privacy policies are still far too long, too complicated, and too full of technical legalese for any reasonable consumer to read, let alone understand. The failures of these notices are even clearer when placed on the exploding number of mobile devices on which consumers have grown to rely. My bill avoids this messy ``rabbit hole'' of policy considerations and creates an easy mechanism that gives consumers the opportunity to simply say ``no thank you'' to anyone and everyone collecting their online information. Period. Let me also say a few words about what this bill does not do. My bill would not ``break the Internet,'' as I am sure we will hear from opponents. The truth is that my bill makes every necessary accommodation for online companies to continue providing content and services to consumers. For instance, websites and applications would still be able collect data to deliver the content and functionality that consumers have requested, perform internal analytics, improve performance, and prevent fraud. My bill would also allow online companies to collect and maintain consumer information when it has been voluntarily provided by the consumer. They could also collect data that is truly anonymous. Finally, consumers could allow companies they trust to collect and use their information by giving specific consent that overrides a general do-not-track preference. But, when consumers say that they do not want to be tracked, online companies would no longer be allowed to ignore this request and collect and use this information for any extraneous purpose. Moreover, these companies would be obligated to immediately destroy or anonymize the information once it is no longer needed to provide the service requested. I think it is worth noting that since 2010, the FTC has called for a do-not-track solution. The commission has stated that any effective do- not-track system should be simple, easy to use, and persistent, and that, if implemented, it should prevent the collection of consumers' online data. The private sector has also taken notice and similarly recognized the utility of do-not-track for its users. Nearly every popular web browser now allows consumers to affirmatively declare a do- not-track preference to websites. The problem is that online companies have no legal obligation to honor this request and, in fact, many have gone so far as to outright refuse to do so. In February 2012, industry leaders stood at the White House and publicly declared their commitment to honor do-not-track requests from web browsers. Yet since that time, industry has failed to live up to those commitments. The online advertising industry has articulated huge exemptions to its pledge to limit the collection of information--exceptions that undermine the very self-regulatory programs the industry has promoted as effective. This industry has emphasized consumer choice yet has made statements publicly refusing to honor new do-not-track browser features. My bill would put an end to this gamesmanship and nonsense. My bill is only part of the ongoing discussion on consumer privacy in Congress. It is simple, yet powerful. It allows consumers, if they choose, and I should emphasize that many will not make such a choice, to stop the mind-boggling number of online companies that are collecting vast amounts of their information. It gives consumers an easy-to-use tool that will implement their choices effectively in a complex, rapidly-changing online world. It prohibits those lurking in the cyber-shadows from profiting off of the personal, private information of ordinary Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other privacy legislative efforts in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2013. This bill is a critical step towards furthering consumer privacy. It empowers Americans to control their personal information online and provides them with the ability to prevent online companies from collecting and using that information for profit. Do-not-track is a simple concept. It allows consumers, with a simple click of the mouse, to tell every company that participates in the vast online ecosystem, ``Do not collect information about me. I care about my privacy. My personal information is not for sale. And I do not want my information used in ways I do not expect or approve.'' Under this bill, online companies would have to honor that user declaration or face penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, or State Attorneys General. This bill is necessary because the privacy of Americans is increasingly under assault as more and more of their daily lives are conducted online. Whether it is a person at home searching for a new job or home, a parent researching her sick child's symptoms and treatments using a health application, or a teenager using her smartphone while riding the subway, online companies are collecting massive amounts of information, often without consumers' knowledge or consent. A vast array of companies that consumers have never heard of are surreptitiously collecting this information in numerous ways: third-party advertising networks place ``cookies'' on computer web- browsers to track the websites that consumers have visited; analytic and marketing companies identify individual computers by recognizing the unique configuration, or ``fingerprint,'' of web-browsers; and software applications installed on mobile devices, colloquially known as ``apps,'' collect, use, and share information about consumers' precise locations, contact lists, photographs, and other personal matters. All of this information can be combined and stored on computer servers around the world and used for a variety of purposes, ranging from website analytics to online behavioral advertising to the creation of comprehensive dossiers by data brokers that build and sell personal profiles about hundreds of millions of individual Americans. My bill would empower consumers, if they so choose, to stem the tide. It would give them the means to prohibit the collection of their information from the start. Consumers would be able to tell companies collecting their personal information that they want those collection practices to stop. At the same time, the bill would preserve the ability of those online companies to conduct their business and deliver the content and services that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. The bill would grant the FTC rulemaking authority to use its expertise to protect the privacy interests of consumers while addressing the legitimate needs of industry. The key to this bill is its simplicity. For over a decade in the Senate Commerce Committee, which I chair, we have tried to determine how online companies can provide clear and conspicuous notice to consumers about their information practices and--once this notice has been given--further determine how consumers can either opt-in or opt- out of those information collection practices. Yet today, privacy policies are still far too long, too complicated, and too full of technical legalese for any reasonable consumer to read, let alone understand. The failures of these notices are even clearer when placed on the exploding number of mobile devices on which consumers have grown to rely. My bill avoids this messy ``rabbit hole'' of policy considerations and creates an easy mechanism that gives consumers the opportunity to simply say ``no thank you'' to anyone and everyone collecting their online information. Period. Let me also say a few words about what this bill does not do. My bill would not ``break the Internet,'' as I am sure we will hear from opponents. The truth is that my bill makes every necessary accommodation for online companies to continue providing content and services to consumers. For instance, websites and applications would still be able collect data to deliver the content and functionality that consumers have requested, perform internal analytics, improve performance, and prevent fraud. My bill would also allow online companies to collect and maintain consumer information when it has been voluntarily provided by the consumer. They could also collect data that is truly anonymous. Finally, consumers could allow companies they trust to collect and use their information by giving specific consent that overrides a general do-not-track preference. But, when consumers say that they do not want to be tracked, online companies would no longer be allowed to ignore this request and collect and use this information for any extraneous purpose. Moreover, these companies would be obligated to immediately destroy or anonymize the information once it is no longer needed to provide the service requested. I think it is worth noting that since 2010, the FTC has called for a do-not-track solution. The commission has stated that any effective do- not-track system should be simple, easy to use, and persistent, and that, if implemented, it should prevent the collection of consumers' online data. The private sector has also taken notice and similarly recognized the utility of do-not-track for its users. Nearly every popular web browser now allows consumers to affirmatively declare a do- not-track preference to websites. The problem is that online companies have no legal obligation to honor this request and, in fact, many have gone so far as to outright refuse to do so. In February 2012, industry leaders stood at the White House and publicly declared their commitment to honor do-not-track requests from web browsers. Yet since that time, industry has failed to live up to those commitments. The online advertising industry has articulated huge exemptions to its pledge to limit the collection of information--exceptions that undermine the very self-regulatory programs the industry has promoted as effective. This industry has emphasized consumer choice yet has made statements publicly refusing to honor new do-not-track browser features. My bill would put an end to this gamesmanship and nonsense. My bill is only part of the ongoing discussion on consumer privacy in Congress. It is simple, yet powerful. It allows consumers, if they choose, and I should emphasize that many will not make such a choice, to stop the mind-boggling number of online companies that are collecting vast amounts of their information. It gives consumers an easy-to-use tool that will implement their choices effectively in a complex, rapidly-changing online world. It prohibits those lurking in the cyber-shadows from profiting off of the personal, private information of ordinary Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other privacy legislative efforts in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleagues Senators, Crapo, Wyden, and Moran in introducing the Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2013, legislation to extend for 3 years the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax credit. In the 112th Congress, I introduced a 6-year extension of this credit. Despite the often contentious atmosphere of the 112th Congress, during which my colleagues found little they could agree on, the short line rail credit was a bipartisan success story, with my legislation attracting more than 50 bipartisan cosponsors. ``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by large, trans-continental railroads. Supporting small railroads allows the communities surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and create jobs. The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in communities across America. This credit has real impact for the people of my state. West Virginia is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the country. Since the credit was enacted, it is estimated 750,000 railroad ties have been purchased above what would have otherwise been purchased with no incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly into jobs. This credit does not create just West Virginia jobs though. The ties, spikes, and rail this credit helps fund are almost entirely American made. Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation and improvements. Unfortunately, it is now scheduled to expire at the end of 2013. We were unable to enact a full 6-year extension of this important tax credit last Congress, but I was pleased that this credit was extended through the end of 2013 as part of the December 31st fiscal cliff deal. This Congress I want to do more. This credit, and the short line railroads that serve all of our constituents, deserve a meaningful extension. If this credit is allowed to expire at the end of the year, private-sector investments in infrastructure in our communities will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars. This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2016, providing the important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private- sector transportation infrastructure investment. Over 50 members of this body sponsored legislation in the last Congress extending this credit and I hope there will be similar support again this year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is desperately needed in West Virginia and across the country--the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. It is an important bill aimed at addressing the rapid increase in deaths and overdoses from methadone and other opioid prescription drugs in the United States. These deaths have hit my home State of West Virginia particularly hard, but I know that every State is struggling with this serious problem. In the 111th Congress, Senator Corker and I, along with our colleague, the late Senator Kennedy, introduced the Methadone Treatment and Protection Act of 2009--a similar piece of legislation that stemmed from a disturbing rise in deaths due to methadone, a synthetic opioid prescription drug that had been increasingly used for pain management. Before 1990, it was used primarily to treat opioid addiction. Because of its high efficacy and low cost, methadone is frequently used for pain management. However, if not used correctly, methadone can be a powerful and deadly drug because it works differently than other painkillers. Methadone stays in a person's body for a longer period of time than the pain relief lasts so a person who does not know better might take far too much of the drug, possibly leading to respiratory distress, cardiac arrhythmia and even death. Methadone prescriptions for pain management grew from about 531,000 in 1998 to about 4.1 million in 2006--nearly eightfold. During that time, poisoning deaths involving methadone increased nearly sevenfold from almost 790 in 1999 to 5,420 in 2006. Deaths from other opioids have also skyrocketed in the last decade. These deaths may actually be underreported, because there is no comprehensive reporting system for opioid-related deaths in the United States. Overdoses from methadone are part of a larger disturbing trend of overdoses and deaths from prescription painkillers, or opioid drugs--a trend driven by a knowledge gap about how to treat serious pain in a safe and effective manner, by misperceptions about the safety of prescription drugs, and by the diversion of prescription drugs for illicit uses. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related emergency department, ED, visits of which nearly one half, 45.1 percent, or 2.1 million were attributed to prescription drug misuse or abuse, according to data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN. Emergency department visits involving misuse or abuse of pharmaceuticals nearly doubled between 2004 and 2009, to more than 1.2 million visits. This bill takes multiple steps to address these problems. First, with respect to the knowledge gap about safe pain management, the bill includes a training requirement for health care professionals to be licensed to prescribe these powerful drugs. Currently, the Controlled Substances Act requires that every person who dispenses or who proposes to dispense controlled narcotics, including methadone, whether for pain management or opioid treatment, obtain a registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. But, there is no requirement as a condition of receiving the registration that these practitioners receive any education on the use of these controlled narcotics, including methadone. Physicians struggle every day with determining who has a real need for pain treatment, and who is addicted or at risk. They struggle with our failure to provide adequate treatment facilities for those who are addicted. This bill will help physicians get the information they need to prescribe safely and better recognize the signs of addiction in their patients. Second, this bill addresses the knowledge gap among consumers--with a competitive grant program to States to distribute culturally sensitive educational materials about proper use of methadone and other opioids, and how to prevent opioid abuse, such as through safe disposal of prescription drugs. Preference will be given to states with a high incidence of overdoses and deaths. Third, this bill creates a Controlled Substances Clinical Standards Commission to establish patient education guidelines, appropriate and safe dosing standards for all forms of methadone and other opioids, benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse, appropriate conversion factors for transitioning patients from one opioid to another, and guidelines for the initiation of methadone and other opioids for pain management. A standards commission will provide much- needed evidence-based information to improve guidance for the safe and effective use of these powerful and dangerous controlled substances. Fourth, this bill provides crucial support to state prescription drug monitoring programs. As of 2008, 38 states had enacted legislation requiring prescription drug monitoring programs and many states were able to fund these initiatives in part from grants available through the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A second program created in 2005 through the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, would provide even more assistance, and requires interoperability among states to reduce doctor shopping across state lines and diversion. Unfortunately, NASPER has only recently been funded with $2 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus legislation and $2 million in fiscal year 2010. Here is just one example of why NASPER funding matters: recently, the governor of Florida announced a budget that would not fund a planned prescription monitoring program in his State, due to State budget difficulties. This directly affects States in Appalachia because of the rampant drug trafficking between the two regions. In fact, the roads from West Virginia to Florida are well-travelled by drug traffickers and people seeking pain medication. It is crucial to finally give NASPER the funding it needs, and this legislation would do so, with $25 million a year to establish interoperable prescription drug monitoring programs within each state. Fifth, this bill requires that quality standards be developed across the range of providers engaged in the prevention and treatment of prescription drug abuse. It is essential as we move ahead that quality always be front and center in our efforts. With lives at risk, this is, if anything, only more important in the areas of addiction prevention and treatment. Every effort to address this problem must be as effective as possible, and the development of quality standards required by this bill will make sure that each provider, regardless of his or her background or approach, can provide high caliber services to their patients. Finally, this bill would help solve the data gap when it comes to opioid-related deaths. Right now there is no comprehensive national database of drug-related deaths in the United States, nor is there a standard form for medical examiners to fill out with regard to opioid- related deaths. Since there is no comprehensive database of methadone- related deaths, the number of deaths may actually be underreported. To truly reduce the number of methadone-related deaths, quality data must be collected and made available. This bill would create a National Opioid Death Registry to track all opioid-related deaths and related information, and establish a standard form for medical examiners to fill out which would include information for the National Opioid Death Registry. Today we have an opportunity to change the harrowing statistics and stem the rising tide of deaths from methadone and other opioids by supporting the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013. This legislation provides a multifaceted approach to preventing tragic overdoses and deaths from methadone and other opioids. This is exactly what we need to improve the coordination of efforts and resources at the local, state, and federal levels. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation. In doing so, we will be on our way to saving lives and reducing the needless deaths that otherwise will continue to cause so much suffering for too many individuals, families, and communities in this country.