S5736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

What is even more devastating is the 

fact that children with rare genetic 

diseases account for more than half of 

the rare disease population in the 

United States. 

As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient populations 

face unique challenges. 

It is my hope the National Pediatric 

Research Network Act will increase 

our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation’s children. 

I thank Senators WICKER, WHITEHOUSE, KERRY, BLUMENTHAL, and 

BEGICH for joining me as original cosponsors. 

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, and Mr. KOHL): 

S. 3462. A bill to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join with Senator GRASSLEY

and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward 

and disclose to law enforcement price 

fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator 

GRASSLEY and I have a long history of 

working together on whistleblower 

issues, and I am glad we can continue 

this partnership today. 

Whistleblowers are instrumental in 

alerting the public, Congress, and law 

enforcement to wrongdoing. In many 

cases, their willingness to step forward 

has resulted in important reforms and 

even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report 

such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the 

whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. 

The legislation we introduce today 

was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government 

Accountability Office which, based on 

interviews with key stakeholders, 

found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of 

the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to 

bring forth false claims. 

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which 

have been called the ‘‘Magna Carta of 

free enterprise.’’ Today’s legislation is 

a necessary complement to them. It 

has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate 

to quickly take up and pass this important legislation. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3462 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Criminal 

Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ACPERA. 

The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 

108–237; 15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by adding after section 215 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 216. ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTION FOR 

WHISTLEBLOWERS. 

‘‘(a) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, 

AND AGENTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No person, or any officer, 

employee, contractor, subcontractor or 

agent of such person, may discharge, demote, 

suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other 

manner discriminate against a whistleblower 

in the terms and conditions of employment 

because— 

‘‘(A) the whistleblower provided or caused 

to be provided to the person or the Federal 

Government information relating to— 

‘‘(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 

with an investigation by the Department of 

Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(B) the whistleblower filed, caused to be 

filed, testified, participated in, or otherwise 

assisted an investigation or a proceeding 

filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to— 

‘‘(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 

with an investigation by the Department of 

Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON PROTECTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any whistleblower if— 

‘‘(A) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of 

the antitrust laws; 

‘‘(B) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of 

another criminal law in conjunction with a 

violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(C) the whistleblower planned and initiated an obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by the Department 

of Justice of a violation of the antitrust 

laws. 

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In the section: 

‘‘(A) PERSON.—The term ‘person’ has the 

same meaning as in subsection (a) of the 

first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 

12(a)). 

‘‘(B) ANTITRUST LAWS.—The term ‘antitrust 

laws’ means section 1 or 3 of the Sherman 

Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 3) or similar State law. 

‘‘(C) WHISTLEBLOWER.—The term ‘whistleblower’ means an employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent protected from discrimination under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT ACTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A whistleblower who alleges discharge or other discrimination by 

any person in violation of subsection (a) may 

seek relief under subsection (c) by— 

‘‘(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary 

of Labor; or 

‘‘(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final 

decision within 180 days of the filing of the 

complaint and there is no showing that such 

delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, 

bringing an action at law or equity for de 

novo review in the appropriate district court 

of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard 

to the amount in controversy. 

‘‘(2) PROCEDURE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A complaint filed with 

the Secretary of Labor under paragraph 

(1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and 

procedures set forth in section 42121(b)of 

title 49, United States Code. 

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Notification made under 

section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States 

Code, shall be made to the person named in 

the complaint and to the employer. 

‘‘(C) BURDENS OF PROOF.—A complaint filed 

with the Secretary of Labor under paragraph 

(1) shall be governed by the legal burdens of 

proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, 

United States Code. 

‘‘(D) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—A complaint under paragraph (1)(A) shall be filed 

with the Secretary of Labor not later than 

180 days after the date on which the violation occurs. 

‘‘(E) CIVIL ACTIONS TO ENFORCE.—If a person 

fails to comply with an order or preliminary 

order issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the procedures in section 42121(b), 

the Secretary of Labor or the person on 

whose behalf the order was issued may bring 

a civil action to enforce the order in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the violation occurred. 

‘‘(c) REMEDIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A whistleblower prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) 

shall be entitled to all relief necessary to 

make the whistleblower whole. 

‘‘(2) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.—Relief for 

any action under paragraph (1) shall include— 

‘‘(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the whistleblower would have 

had, but for the discrimination; 

‘‘(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and 

‘‘(C) compensation for any special damages 

sustained as a result of the discrimination 

including litigation costs, expert witness 

fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees. 

‘‘(d) RIGHTS RETAINED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS.—Nothing in this section shall be 

deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or 

remedies of any whistleblower under any 

Federal or State law, or under any collective 

bargaining agreement.’’. 

By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, 

Mr. LUGAR, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio): 

S. 3463. A bill to amend title XVIII of 

the Social Security Act to reduce the 

incidence of diabetes among Medicare 

beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Senator FRANKEN, Senator 

LUGAR, Senator COLLINS, Senator SHAHEEN, Senator WYDEN, Senator 

BLUMENTHAL, and Senator BROWN of 

Ohio, to introduce an important piece 

of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare 

Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our 

legislation makes a wise investment in 

seniors’ health by extending the proven 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5737 

success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly 

26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend doesn’t 

stop, over half of the adult population 

will either have Type 2 diabetes or its 

precursor, ‘‘prediabetes,’’ by 2020. 

Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes 

rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11 percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for Disease 

Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000 people with 

Medicare in West Virginia may be at 

risk of developing this serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in three children born in 

West Virginia after the year 2000 will 

develop diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk developing terrible complications down 

the road, including heart disease, 

stroke, blindness, and amputations. 

Diabetes is also one of the main cost 

drivers in our health care system. The 

direct economic burden of diabetes was 

$116 billion for medical expenses and 

indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to 

disability, work loss, or premature 

death in 2007. The costs associated with 

this preventable disease for Medicare 

beneficiaries are expected to grow to $2 

trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period. 

We simply cannot stand idly by in 

the face of such overwhelming statistics—and fortunately, there is a way to 

prevent Type 2 diabetes. The National 

Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, 

is an innovative approach that has 

demonstrated its effects in preventing 

the onset of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP 

is a proven, community-based intervention that focuses on changing lifestyle 

behaviors of prediabetic overweight or 

obese adults through activities that 

improve dietary choices and increase 

physical activity in a group setting. In 

a large-scale clinical trial that has 

been replicated in community settings, 

NDPP successfully reduced the onset of 

diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 

percent in adults over 60. 

Because of the impressive success of 

the National Diabetes Prevention Program, I believe our seniors should have 

access to its benefits. The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help 

seniors prevent Type 2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes Prevention Program 

through community settings like the 

YMCA, local health departments, or 

even the local church, reaching people 

with Medicare wherever they live. In 

the past, physicians have had few tools 

for their patients who are found to be 

at risk of diabetes. Under this bill, if a 

senior is found at risk for diabetes, for 

example, through their annual wellness 

visit, their doctor will be able to refer 

them to an NDPP program in their 

area. 

Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover this 

program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay for 

this innovative initiative, and it is my 

hope that more states will do so. By 

2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 

million people with diabetes and about 

9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with 

diabetes or pre-diabetes. The National 

Diabetes Prevention program presents 

an opportunity for States to reduce the 

incidence of diabetes among individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid program under 

health reform. 

The coverage of proven solutions 

under Medicare is nothing new. Yet, 

rather than providing a traditional 

drug or procedure, NDPP allows at-risk 

individuals to change their lifestyles 

through a community intervention. 

Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming and escalating 

rates of diabetes. This public health solution has demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to 

prevent diabetes, while reducing health 

care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and 

cost-effective intervention that costs 

less than $500 per person to deliver, 

compared to the estimated $15,000 per 

year spent on each Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the 

Urban Institute, implementing the 

NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next 10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going 

to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Better yet, the National Diabetes 

Prevention Program is a job creator, 

bringing diabetes trainers to more 

communities nationwide to provide the 

program. West Virginia has already received funding from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention 

through a Community Transformation 

Grant that will allow the State to 

train at least 100 community health 

workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention Program in the State 

over the next 5 years. 

The Medicare Diabetes Prevention 

Act has been endorsed by the American 

Diabetes Association, American Heart 

Association, American Public Health 

Association, National Association of 

Chronic Disease Directors, National 

Association of State Long-Term Care 

Ombudsman Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for 

America’s Health, the YMCA of the 

USA, and State YMCA affiliates in 

over 45 States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and 

its potentially severe complications, 

today is the right time for Medicare to 

extend the proven National Diabetes 

Prevention Program as a covered benefit to seniors. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

timely and important piece of legislation. 

By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota: 

S. 3464. A bill to amend the Mni 

Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to facilitate 

completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural 

Water Supply System, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources. 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. 

President, today I introduced legislation to facilitate completion of the Mni 

Wiconi Rural Water System. The Mni 

Wiconi Project provides quality drinking water to three Indian Reservations 

and a non-tribal rural water system in 

western South Dakota that have historically faced insufficient and, in too 

many cases, unsafe drinking water. 

I have been involved with this project 

for the entirety of my 25 year congressional career, including sponsoring authorizing legislation that was ultimately enacted in 1988. In authorizing 

the project, Congress found that the 

United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe 

water supplies are available to meet 

the economic, environmental, water 

supply, and public health needs of the 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, and Lower 

Brule Indian Reservation. With treated 

drinking water from the Missouri River 

now reaching most of the three reservations, as well as the 7 county area 

of the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural 

Water System, we are very close to 

completing this critically important 

project. 

Unfortunately, appropriations have 

failed to keep pace with projected 

timelines, and additional costs have 

cut into construction funding. Accordingly, the project requires an increase 

in the cost ceiling and extension of its 

authorization in order to be completed 

and serve the design population. Without an adjustment to the cost ceiling, 

some portions of the Oglala Sioux 

Rural Water Supply System and Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System will remain incomplete. The legislation I 

have introduced today addresses this 

shortfall and other important aspects 

of the project. The legislation also directs other Federal agencies that support rural water development to assist 

the Bureau of Reclamation in improving and repairing existing community 

water systems that are important components of the project. 

Our Federal responsibility to address 

the tremendous need for adequate and 

safe drinking water supplies on the 

Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule 

Indian Reservations remains as important today as it was 25 years ago. I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this modest but important legislation. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 534—CONGRATULATING THE NAVY DENTAL CORPS ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY 

Mr. MANCHIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE